UNION  -  DISUNION  -  REUNION. 


THREE  DECADES 


OF 


FEDERAL  LEGISLATION, 

lQ$$    TO     l88j. 

PERSONAL  AND  HISTORICAL  MEMORIES  OF  EVENTS  PRECEDING, 
DURING,   AND   SINCE 

THE  AMERICAN  CIVIL  WAR, 

INVOLVING  SLAVERY  AND  SECESSION,  EMANCIPATION  AND  RECONSTRUC 
TION,  WITH  SKETCHES  OF  PROMINENT   ACTORS 
DURING  THESE  PERIODS. 

•  1155- Iff  f'  Pitt 


SAMUEL  S.  Cox? 

MEMBER  OF  CONGRESS  FOR  TWENTY-FOUR  YEARS. 

AUTHOR  OF  "  BUCKEYE  ABROAD,"  "WHY  WE  LAUGH,"  "WINTER  SUNBEAMS, 
"ARCTIC  SUNBEAMS,"  "ORIENT  SUNBEAMS,"  ETC. 


ILLUSTRATED 


WITH  THIRTY-SIX  PORTRAITS  ENGRAVED  ON  STEKL 
EXPRESSLY  FOR  THIS  WORK. 


SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL.  : 
OCCIDENTAL  PUBLISHING  CO. 

1885. 


Press  of 

J.  A.  &  R.  A.  REID,  PUBLISHERS, 
Providence,  R.  I. 


Steel  Plates  by  the 

HOMER-LEE  BANK  NOTE  Co., 

New-York. 


COPYRIGHT,  1885, 
BY   SAMUEL    S.    COX. 

All  Rights  Reserved. 


n 


IT  is  said  by  a  translator  of  Thucydides,  that  the  sources  from  which 
the  ancient  historian  gathered  his  narrative  are  very  dissimilar  to  those  at 
the  disposal  of  the  modern  historian.  The  first  were  meagre  and  oral,  the 
latter  are  often  overwhelming  to  the  compiler  by  the  very  mass  of  materials. 
Writers  like  Thucydides  had  certain  aids,  such  as  statues,  buildings,  columns 
from  sepulchres,  decrees  of  state,  and  traditions,  but  few  written  data  com 
parable  with  modern  libraries. 

The  author  of  this  volume,  unlike  the  ancient  recorder,  has  had  no  need 
to  draw  upon  his  imagination  in  order  to  depict  events,  or  give  eloquence  to 
his  characters.  He  has  had  access  to  a  multitude  of  books  and  other  re 
corded  evidences  bearing  upon  his  theme.  He  has  also  been  quite  near  to 
the  contending  forces  and  persons,  and  in  the  very  midst  of  many  of  the 
events  which  he  narrates.  He  has  written  within  reach  of  the  Library  of 
Congress,  with  its  vast  stores  of  material.  He  has  had  the  same  freedom  of 
access  to  the  House  Library,  and  to  collections  of  legislative  and  executive 
documents.  No  fact  has  been  stated  upon  doubtful  authority.  All  impor 
tant  statements  have  been  made  in  the  language  of  official  reports  of  the 
executive  departments  of  the  government,  of  congressional  investigating 
committees,  of  the  witnesses  examined  before  congressional  or  legislative 
committees,  or  of  the  proceedings  of  the  state  conventions  and  legislatures. 
In  cases  of  conflicting  testimony,  the  statements  of  witnesses  or  parties  on 
each  side  have  been  considered  or  cited.  No  inference  prejudicial  to  private 
character  or  public  conduct  has  been  drawn  which  has  not  been  accom 
panied  by  indisputable  facts. 

In  the  preparation  of  portions  of  this  work  the  writer  has  had  the  assist 
ance  of  gentlemen  with  whom  he  is  more  or  less  associated  in  and  out  of 
Congress,  and  without  whose  aid  he  could  not  speak  with  such  absolute 
certainty  as  to  some  of  its  verities.  - 


4  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  title  —  "The  Three  Decades'*- — indicates  the  scope  of  the  volume. 

The  first  decade  begins  with  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party  at 
Pittsburgh,  in  the  year  1855.  This  party  was  partly  built  upon  the  ruins  of 
the  Know  Nothing  and  Whig  parties  ;  but  the  genius  of  the  structure  was 
the  aggressive  and  intellectual  anti-slavery  zealotry  which,  though  for  a  long 
time  championed  by  few,  had  almost  as  long  been  a  most  potential  factor  in 
our  politics.  With  this  decade  begins,  practically,  the  era  of  sectionalism. 
It  was  marked  by  a  sanguinary  and  prolonged  internecine  war.  The  year 
1865  saw  the  termination  of  that  war. 
^,-^The  second  decade  begins  with  the  period  of  Reconstruction. 

^Fhe  third  decade  begins  with  that  part  of  the  period  of  Reconstruction 
when  the  unconstitutional  exercise  of  the  military  power  at  the  polls  ceased. 
This  was  the  one  good  result  of  the  compromises  which  grew  out  of  the 
Great  Fraud  perpetrated  by  means  of  the  Electoral  Commission. 

From  1865  to  1885  there  was  a  twenty  years'  struggle  to  restore  the  early 
and  better  order  which  had  existed  before  the  extremes  of  sectionalism  began 
their  baleful  and  bloody  work. 

It  has  been  the  unhappy  fate  of  the  passing  generation  to  witness  the 
fulfillment  of  Mr.  Webster's  prophetic  vision.  States  have  been  "dissevered, 
discordant,  belligerent."  Our  land  has  been  "rent  with  civil  feuds"  and 
"drenched  in  fraternal  blood."  These  eloquent  words  were  uttered  in  1830. 
They  presaged  the  controversy  upon  slavery  and  its  extension.  That  con 
troversy  led  to  the  national  disaster  which  he  so  much  feared. 

It  is  no  part  of  the  plan  of  this  work  to  embrace  a  full  history  of  that 
controversy,  nor  of  the  subsequent  war,  and  the  action  of  the  government. 
Leaving  those  events  as  concluded  in  the  first  decade,  the  second  begins  with 
the  efforts  of  President  Lincoln  to  restore  the  "dissevered"  and  "discord 
ant"  states  to  their  proper  Federal  relations. 

The  generous  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln  was  thwarted  at  its  very  inception 
by  the  majority  in  Congress.  It  was  almost  slain  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin. 
Another  political  phase  came  before  its  practicability  could  be  tested.  There 
is  a  prevalent  notion  that  President  Johnson  adopted,  and  proposed  to  carry 
out,  the  policy  of  his  predecessor ;  but  it  will  be  seen  that  he  had  a  policy  of 
his  own,  and  that  the  plan  of  the  Republican  President  was  more  liberal 
and  comprehensive  than  that  of  his  Democratic  successor. 

It  is  contemplated  to  give  a  condensed  history  of  what  was  done  under 
each  of  these  Presidential  policies,  both  in  Washington  and  in  the  states ; 


PREFACE.  5 

and  of  the  overthrow  of  the  provisional  governments  established  under  them 
by  the  military  commanders  appointed  under  the  Act  of  March  2,  1867. 

This  Act  was  the  initial  measure  of  Congressional  Reconstruction.  It 
was  followed  by  the  Act  of  March  23,  of  the  same  year,  which  gave  partic 
ular  directions  to  the  military  commanders  in  the  Southern  States  to  cause 
a  registration  of  the  voters  therein,  and  to  order  the  election  of  delegates  to 
conventions  which  were  to  frame  constitutions  for  these  states. 

The  essential  facts  of  these  important  proceedings  in  each  of  the  recon 
structed  states  are  taken  from  the  legislative  journals,  and  are  presented  to 
the  reader  with  an  account  of  the  partisan  struggles,  the  legislation,  and  the 
official  corruption  which  were  precursory  to  the  inauguration  of  universal 
liberty  and  equality  in  the  Southern  States. 

The  enforcement  of  the  Reconstruction  acts  by  the  military  commanders 
involved  the  subordination  of  the  civil  to  the  military  power.  All  the  more 
striking  incidents  of  this  despotic  form  of  government  were  thus  interpolated 
into  our  republican  constitutional  system.  This  was  done  despite  of  heroic 
protest,  and  in  the  latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  century ! 

The  establishment  of  the  Freedman's  Bureau  for  the  protection,  educa 
tion,  and  encouragement  of  the  newly  emancipated  and  enfranchised  negroes 
was  a  part  of  the  work  of  Reconstruction.  The  operations  of  the  Bureau 
have,  therefore,  received  attention. 

A  history  of  Reconstruction  cannot  pass  over  the  outrages  perpetrated 
upon  the  negroes  and  many  of  the  whites  by  the  "  Ku-Klux  Klan"  and  other 
unlawful  combinations.  These  organizations  sprang  up  after  the  enfran 
chisement  of  the  blacks,  and  the  partial  disfranchisement  of  the  whites. 
Many  shocking  details  are  given,  with  careful  statements  of  the  number  and 
character  of  the  criminal  acts  of  the  "Klan." 

The  abuse  of  power  in  the  Southern  States,  by  governments  formed 
under  the  leadership  of  Northern  adventurers,  has  been  exposed.  Much 
might  be  added  to  this  department  of  the  history. 

It  may  be  said  here  that  it  has  not  been  the  purpose  of  the  author,  though 
a  life-long  adherent  to  the  Democratic  party,  to  set  forth  any  particular  theory 
of  the  Constitution.  He  does  not  seek  to  uphold  or  to  advance  the  interests 
of  any  section  of  the  country,  or  faction  of  the  people.  He  has  no  ambi 
tions  to  gratify  by  the  distortion  or  suspension  of  the  truths  of  history.  His 
aim  is  to  bring  out  all  the  material  facts  under  their  several  heads,  in  the 
order  of  their  occurrence.  His  criticisms  consist  only  of  such  inferences  as 
seem  to  be  clearly  warranted.  Of  course,  in  such  a  presentation,  principles 


6  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

and  policies,  modes  of  political  thought,  and  creeds  of  interpretation  will 
receive  some  illustration. 

The  author  is  moved  to  this  congenial  work  because  of  the  erroneous 
impressions  created  by  a  class  of  literature  that  is  too  often  partial  and  malig 
nant.  The  new  generation  find  great  perplexity  in  comprehending  the  issues 
treated  in  this  work — issues  that  stirred  the  great  Republic  to  the  founda 
tions  of  its  polity  and  society.  The  mode  adopted  for  the  solution  of  these 
issues  by  military  force  and  civil  power  should  be  studied  from  a  non-partisan 
point  of  view,  in  order  to  reach  just  conclusions. 

For  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  the  writer  has  been  no  inactive  member 
of  the  popular  branch  of  the  Federal  Legislature.  For  eight  years  he  repre 
sented  the  capital  district  of  Ohio.  Four  of  these  years  preceded,  and  four 
were  during  the  civil  conflict.  At  the  conclusion  of  this  period  of  service 
he  removed  to  the  city  of  New- York.  There,  for  a  time,  he  was  aloof  from 
old  political  associations.  He  devoted  himself  to  new  pursuits,  and  formed 
new  attachments.  After  a  season  he  was  returned  as  a  Federal  Representa 
tive  from  the  city  of  New- York.  From  1868  to  1885  he  passed  through  the 
ordeal  of  a  metropolitan  member. 

During  these  unexampled  periods  it  has  been  the  fortune  of  the  writer  to 
mingle  with  public  men  of  every  shade  of  opinion, —  men  in  every  variety  of 
public  and  private  employment,  and  of  every  quality  and  grade  of  character. 
He  has  drawn  from  decrees  of  state,  and  even  the  "  columns  of  the  sepul 
chres,"  as  well  as  from  the  controversies  of  contending  parties,  the  memora 
bilia  for  this  history. 

In  this  change  from  West  to  East  —  from  the  capital  of  the  proudest 
Western  state  to  the  great  metropolis  of  the  country — the  author  never  had 
occasion  to  change  his  first  unwavering  trust  in  his  political  faith.  He  never 
ceased  to  believe — what  now  in  1885  is  apparent — that  the  party  of  consti 
tutional  limitations,  strict  construction,  state  sovereignty,  and  Federal  unity 
would  be  found  indispensable  in  the  end  to  honest  and  united  government. 
As  this  strange,  eventful  period  of  history  is  concluding,  that  party  is  re- 
ascending  to  political  prominence,  by  the  inauguration  of  its  recently-elected 
chief  magistrate,  purified  by  the  ordeal  fires  which  only  added  to  it  invinci 
ble  strength. 


House  of  Representatives, 

Washington,  March  4,  1885. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

DISREGARD  OF  NATIONALITY. 

THE    CAPITOL   AT    WASHINGTON THE    OLD    HALLS   OF  LEGISLATION 

THE  SENATE  OF  WORTHIES DEDICATION    OF    THE    NEW   HOUSE 

MAIDEN  SPEECH  THEREIN THE    USE  OF  AN  OPPOSITION  PARTY 

-  THE      PROXIMATE      CAUSES      OF     THE     CIVIL     CONFLICT  ANCIENT 

ROMAN     POLICY  EXCESSES     NORTH    AND     SOUTH  FUTILE     EF 
FORTS    FOR    ADJUSTMENT THE    THEORY    OF   SECESSION  —  CONSE- 

OJJENCES  OF  SECESSION THE  WISDOM  OF  CIVISM,       .       .        PAGES  25-34 

CHAPTEP     II. 

PARTY  CREEDS  AND  MODES. 

CONSTITUTIONAL     CONSTRUCTION  NEW    ENGLAND     SLAVE    TRADE  — 

THE  COTTON  GIN  AND    THE   MULE-JENNY COTTON  AND    SLAVERY 

SOUTHERN  ANTI-SLAVERY FIRST  FREE   SOIL  VOTE SLAVERY 

IN  THE    TERRITORIES THE    LOUISIANA  AND  FLORIDA   PURCHASES 

THE    MISSOURI    OJJESTION THE  ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS THE 

KANSAS    STRUGGLE THE    WHIG    PARTY   DISBANDS RISE    OF    THE 

REPUBLICAN  PARTY THE  ABOLITIONISTS JOHN  C.  CALHOUN, 

PAGES  35-54 

CHAPTER    III. 

THE  THIRTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS. 

ITS  ORDEAL  AS  TO  SLAVERY  EXTENSION  KANSAS  AND  THE  TERRI 
TORIAL  OJJESTIONS QUADRILATERAL  CONTEST  FOR  THE  PRESI 
DENCY THE  CHARLESTON  CONVENTION THE  DOUGLAS  MAJOR 
ITY  THE  TWO-THIRDS  RULE  THE  SOUTHERN  DELEGATES 

WITHDRAW MR.    LINCOLN    ELECTED THE    SPECTRE    OF   WAR, 

PAGES  55-6l 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  THIRTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS. 

ITS  CHARACTERISTICS,  OPINIONS,  AND  VOTES CONGRESSIONAL  ACTION 

LEADING  TO   DISUNION  THE    SENATE  LEADERS  EFFORTS  TO 

STAY    SECESSION  EXTREMISTS    DEFEAT    THE     COMPROMISE  

CRITTENDEN'S  LAST  APPEAL  — JEFFERSON  DAVIS  NOT  ANXIOUS  TO 

SECEDE THE  EXTREMISTS  IN  THE  HOUSE THE  UNION  PHALANX 

CLEMENT  L.  VALLANDIGHAM, PAGES  62-85 

CHAPTER    V. 

THE  IMPENDING  CONFLICT. 

THE    THIRTY-SIXTH    CONGRESS WHAT     BECAME     OF    THE    MEMBERS 

HOW  THEY  ACTED  IN  THE  WAR NORTHERN  AND  SOUTHERN  CON 
GRESSMEN  EMBATTLED A  PARLIAMENT  WITHOUT  PRECEDENT 

WHY     THE     BATTLE    OF    BELMONT    WAS    FOUGHT A    CHAPTER    OF 

WAR,  ADVENTURE,  AND  NECROLOGY ELY'S  "ONWARD  TO  RICH 
MOND" — JUDGE  REAGAN'S  REPULSE  OF  THE  ENEMY — THE  SEN 
ATORS  AND  MEMBERS  IN  THE  FIELD THEY  FOUGHT  AS  THEY 

VOTED INAUGURATION  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN FIRST  GUNS  OF 

THE  WAR, PAGES  86-IOO 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE  THEORY  AND  PRACTICE  OF  SECESSION. 

MR.  CALHOUN'S  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  —  HE  FAVORED  NULLI 
FICATION  BUT  NOT  SECESSION JEFFERSON'S  VIEWS THE  KEN 
TUCKY  AND  VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS ALIEN  AND  SEDITION  ACTS 

MR.  MADISON'S  INTERPRETATION — MASSACHUSETTS  SHOULDER  TO 

SHOULDER  WITH  SOUTH  CAROLINA  ON  STATE  RESISTANCE THE 

PERSONAL   LIBERTY   BILLS  OF  THE    NORTH  SOUTH   CAROLINA 

LEADING   SECESSION   MOVEMENTS  ALEXANDER    H.    STEPHENS* 

GREAT  SPEECH  FOR  THE  UNION JEFFERSON  DAVIS'  PROPOSITION 

ACTION  OF  TEXAS  THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY  IN  MONT 
GOMERY  FEDERAL  AND  CONFEDERATE  CONSTITUTIONS  PRO 
TESTS  AGAINST  SECESSION  DE  FACTO  IF  NOT  DE  JURE  GOVERN 
MENTS  IN  THE  SOUTH  A  LINE  OF  HOSTILITY  BETWEEN  TWO 

GREAT  COMMUNITIES THE  CRITTENDEN  RESOLUTIONS SECES 
SION  AND  SLAVERY  SUBORDINATE  TO  THE  LINCOLN  POLICY  FOR 

THE  UNION THE  ANOMALOUS  SECESSION  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA  FROM 

OLD  VIRGINIA VARIOUS  THEORIES  AS  TO  THE  INSURGENCY ALL 

MERGED  IN  LINCOLN'S  POLICY THE  FINALE  OF  SLAVERY  AND  OF 

ITS  INCIDENT,  SECESSION, PAGES  IOI-I25 


CONTENTS.  9 

CHAPTER   VII. 

FINANCIAL  SUPPORT  OF  THE  UNION. 

THE    MEXICAN  WAR   FINANCES THE    REVOLUTIONARY   WAR   FINANCES 

STATE  AND  CONTINENTAL  BILLS    OF    CREDIT EARLY   REVENUE 

RESOURCES CUSTOMS,  EXCISES    AND     DIRECT  TAXES THE   CIVIL 

WAR   FINANCES THE    CIVIL    WAR     DEBT THE    ISSUES    OF    BONDS 

AND    TREASURY  NOTES UNITED  STATES  NOTES LEGAL  TENDER 

NOTES DUTIES  ON  IMPORTS  UNDER  THE  MORRILL  TARIFFS THE 

INTERNAL  REVENUE  SYSTEM THE    PLAN  FOR   A  NATIONAL  PAPER  ] 

CURRENCY  ITS     ORIGIN    AND     CONSTITUTIONALITY  AMERICAN   ' 

ABILITY    TO    SUSTAIN    TAXATION, PAGES    126-144 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  LEADING  MOVEMENTS  OF  THE  WAR— 1861-1862. 

WHAT  ARE  ACTS  OF  WAR? SEIZURE  OF  FEDERAL  FORTS  AND  PROP 
ERTY SUMTER  AND  ITS  FATE DIPLOMACY  AND  ITS  FAILURE 

JUDGE     CAMPBELL     AND     MR.    SEWARD THE    EXCITEMENT    NORTH 

AND    SOUTH  BLOOD      SPRINKLING     IMPULSES  JERRY     CLEMENS 

AND   HIS    STORY PRESIDENT   LINCOLN'S    PROCLAMATION EXTRA 

SESSION,    1 86l  —|  PREPARATIONS    FOR    HOSTILITIES BLOCKADE  — 

RESPONSE    TO     CALL   FOR   TROOPS BALTIMORE    IN    A    FERMENT 

MASSACHUSETTS  AROUSED THE    MOUNTAIN   UNIONISTS BORDER 

STATES  SECESSIONISTS ELLSWORTH'S  DEATH THE  ARMY  ABOUT 

WASHINGTON THE     ADVANCE     TO     RICHMOND BULL    RUN,     ITS 

HUMORS    AND    TRAGEDIES BALL'S    BLUFF     AND     ITS     DISASTER  

MISSOURI    CAMPAIGN  LYON*S   HEROISM GENERAL     BAKER     AND 

STONE    PASHA THE    OUTRAGE    UPON  THE  LATTER EXPEDITIONS 

TO  SOUTH  AND  NORTH  CAROLINA THEIR  SUCCESSES BATTLE  IN 

HAMPTON  ROADS THE  MARVEL  OF  HISTORY,      .      .       .       PAGES  1^-1^2 

CHAPTER    IX. 

THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  WAR— 1862. 

CONOJJESTS  ON  SOUTH  CAROLINA  AND  GEORGIA  COASTS  —  MISSOURI  RE 
LIEVED GENERAL  SAMUEL  R.  CURTIS  AT  PEA  RIDGE HIS  SPLEN 
DID  SERVICES  AND  VICTORIES BATTLES  IN  KENTUCKY FALL  OF 

FORTS  HENRY  AND  DONELSON FLOYD  AS  A  GENERAL  AND  A  FAIL 
URE TENNESSEE  OPENED NASHVILLE  OCCUPIED,  AND  ANDREW 

JOHNSON    GOVERNOR  SHILOH    AND     ITS     RESULTS  OPERATIONS 

IN  TENNESSEE HALLECK  SUBORDINATES  GRANT VIRGINIA  CAM 
PAIGN MCCLELLAN  IN  COMMAND HIS  DIFFICULTIES  IN  FRONT 

—  EMBARRASSMENTS  AT  WASHINGTON  —  CHANGE  OF  BASE  TO  THE 
JAMES  RIVER  —  NORFOLK  OCCUPIED  —  THE  AUTHOR'S  PERSONAL 
OBSERVATIONS  — HON.  JOHN  S.  MILLSON  AT  HOME  — THE  BIG  RAM 

"VIRGINIA"  BLOWN  UP  —  FITZ  JOHN  PORTER'S  MOVEMENTS  — MC 
CLELLAN,  MCDOWELL,  POPE,  BANKS,  FREMONT,  SUMNER,  JOSEPH 
E.  JOHNSTON,  LONGSTREET,  JACKSON,  EWELL,  THE  HILLS,  AND 

1 


10  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

OTHER     GIANTS    IN    THE    FIELD MANCEUVRES    AND     DISASTERS  

GREAT     SLAUGHTER MALVERN    HILL     BATTLE RICHMOND    NOT 

TAKEN  McCLELLAN    REMOVED  SECOND    BULL    RUN  MARCH 

INTO    MARYLAND WASHINGTON    THREATENED McCLELLAN  RE 
CALLED ANTIETAM SURRENDER  OF  HARPER'S  FERRY BATTLE 

OF     CHATTANOOGA KIRBY     SMITH      IN     KENTUCKY FRANKFORT 

TAKEN   AND    CINCINNATI  THREATENED THE  SOJJIRREL  CAMPAIGN 

AND    A    RACE    FOR    CONGRESS BRAGG   FORAGING    IN    KENTUCKY 

VAN     DORN     AND    CORINTH  ROSECRANS    AND    BRAGG    AT    STONE 

RIVER GENERAL    STUART'S    CAVALRY   INVADE    PENNSYLVANIA 

GREAT     BATTLE    AT    FREDERICKSBURG  BURNSIDE     DEFEATED 

FARRAGUT    AND     BUTLER   ON     THE    LOWER     MISSISSIPPI NEW  OR 
LEANS    CAPTURED, PAGES   173-193 

CHAPTER    X. 

THE  END  OF  THE  WAR. 

VICKSBURG     CAMPAIGN     OF    1863  OTHER     MOVEMENTS    OF     GRANT 

BANKS    AT     PORT    HUDSON BURNSIDE    SENT    WEST HE    ARRESTS 

VALLANDIGHAM HIS   WONDERFUL   STRATEGY   IN   CAPTURING  THE 

DEMOCRATIC  ORATOR THE  TRIAL THE    AUTHOR'S    EVIDENCE 

HOOKER  DEFEATED  IN  VIRGINIA LOSS  OF  STONEWALL  JACKSON 

POPULAR    CLAMOR    FOR    A    MOVEMENT VINDICTIVENESS    OF    THE 

RADICALS      AND     ST  ANTON MEADE     IN     COMMAND LEE     MOVES 

NORTH A    BOLD    DESIGN  ON  THE  CAPITAL  AND  NORTHERN  CITIES 

GETTYSBURG  A  WATERLOO OTHER    BATTLES    IN  TENNESSEE 

ATLANTA  FALLS SHERMAN  MARCHING  THROUGH  GEORGIA THE 

CAMPAIGN    OF    l86^-6$ THE    TENDENCY    TO    CONCENTRATE    ALL 

FORCE  FOR  THE  GRAND  DENOUEMENT RICHMOND  FALLS APPO- 

MATTOX RESOURCES  AND  COST  OF  THE  WAR THEIR  IMMENSITY 

AND  THE  COMPENSATION, PAGES   194-218 

CHAPTER    XI. 

PERSONAL  LIBERTY  ABUSED  AND  VINDICATED. 

A  WAR  FOR  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  UNION  RADICAL  OPPOSITION  

PERSECUTIONS  BY  ANTI-SLAVERY  RADICALS GENERAL  GRANT'S 

LETTER  OF  1 86 1  HIS  DOCTRINE  OF  NON-INTERFERENCE  WITH 

SLAVERY A  WAR  OF  SUBJUGATION THE  EXTREMES  SOUTH  AND 

NORTH PROCLAMATION  OF  MARTIAL  LAW  IN  l86l ARBITRARY 

ARRESTS  IN  1862  AND  AFTERWARDS HABEAS  CORPUS  SUSPENDED 

OUTRAGEOUS  ORDERS  OF  SECRETARIES  STANTON  AND  SEWARD 

ARRESTS MARSHALS,  SPIES,  AND  COMMISSIONS STANTON  DICTA 
TOR GRAND   EFFORT   OF  DANIEL  W.  VOORHEES   IN  CONGRESS 

DARK  HOURS  FOR  THE  REPUBLIC CAPITAL  FATTENING  ON  CON 
TRACTS  AND  SPOILS,  AND  LEAGWED  WITH  FANATICS GOVERNOR 

SEWARD   IN  HOME   AFFAIRS  PERSONAL   LIBERTY   DISCUSSED  

BINNEY'S  PAMPHLETS  AND  THE  RESPONSES  —  THE  MILLIGAN  CASE 


CONTENTS.  !  j 

THE  SUPREME  COURT  AS  A  BREAKWATER MILLIGAN  SENTENCED 

TO  DEATH  —  VALLANDIGHAM'S  CASE  PARALLEL  —  HIS  PROTEST 

THE   TRUMBULL   LAW GRAND    ARRAY    OF     COUNSEL     IN    MILLIGAN 

CASE LOGIC    OF    THE    DECISION THE    MRS.    SURRATT     TRAGEDY 

VIOLATIVE    OF    THE    DECISION GENERAL    BUTLER    DENOUNCES    IT 

MILITARY   ARRESTS   IN  CONGRESS GALLANT    FIGHT   OF   HENRY 

WINTER  DAVIS    FOR  PERSONAL  LIBERTY HE  SUCCEEDS LIBERTY 

DEATHLESS  MAGNA  CHARTA  DAVIS    ITS   CHAMPION SKETCH 

OF    HIS    LIFE    AND    SERVICES  THE    OLIVE-BRANCH    NOT    OFFERED 

YET LESSONS    OF    HISTORY  SPURNED THE  WAR  LIKELY  TO  END 

WITH    PRACTICAL    DISUNION THE    SECOND  DECADE    BEGINS    WITH 

RECONSTRUCTION       OF      DISMANTLED      STATES  HOPE     FOR      THE 

PEOPLE BEAUTY    FOR    ASHES, PAGES  219-240 

CHAPTER    XII. 

PROSCRIPTION  OF  PERSONS  AND  PROPERTY. 

LEGISLATIVE    AND    EXECUTIVE    MODES NON-INTERCOURSE THEORY 

AND    PRACTICE WAS    SECESSION   WAR    OR    NOT IT  WAS  A    PRAC 
TICAL    FACT  DILEMMA    AS     TO     "  PIRATES  "    AND    PRISONERS     OF 

WAR  —  LINCOLN'S  SOLUTION  —  ANOMALOUS  RIGORS,  NORTH  AND 

SOUTH HIGHER    LAW    NEWLY    APPLIED AESOP'S   SATYR AFTER 

THE     WAR  FOLLY     OF   NON-ACTION    SOUTH  TWO    DECADES    OF 

TROUBLE  MIGHT  HAVE    BEEN   AVERTED RADICAL    PROSCRIPTIONS 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION  OF  AMENDMENTS CONFISCA 
TION  ACTS ATTAINDER  AND  EX  POST  FACTO  LAWS BELLIGERENT 

STATUS    VIOLATED  TEST    OATHS  LOYALTY  CUMMINGS    AND 

PERMOLI    CASES IN  RE  GARLAND JUSTICE    FIELD'S    DECISIONS 

FOURTEENTH   AMENDMENT  A    BILL    OF   ATTAINDER  ITS    MON 
STROSITY  FORCE    BILL     AND    ITS    FATE  LIBERTY    ECLIPSED  

TEST    OATH    REPEALED    IN    1884 RAPINE    BY  LAW DEMOCRATIC 

PROTESTS  AGAINST  OSTRACISM  AND  TYRANNY,        .          .         PAGES  241-257 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

FOREIGN  RELATIONS  DURING  TH&  CIVIL  WAR. 

•GREAT  BRITAIN  RECOGNIZES  THE  CONFEDERACY BELLIGERENT  RIGHTS 

CONCEDED JUDGE  BLACK'S  CIRCULAR  LETTER MR.  BUCHANAN'S 

ADMINISTRATION  VINDICATING  NATIONAL  JURISDICTION MR.  SEW- 

ARD  SPEAKING  FOR    PRESIDENT    LINCOLN'S    ADMINISTRATION AP 
PREHENSIONS A    FEATHER    IN    THE    SCALE THE    SWITZERLAND 

CASE  EARLY    TREATIES     WITH     EUROPE     RECOGNIZING     OUR     IN 
DEPENDENT    AND     SOVEREIGN    STATES THE    SPANISH    AMERICAN 

STATES FREEDOM    OF   THE    SEAS MEDIAEVAL    RULES    OF     MARI 
TIME    LAW PIRACY CONTRABAND    OF    WAR  TREATIES   AS    TO 

CONTRABAND THE    MARCY   PROPOSITIONS THE    PARIS   CONFER 
ENCE     OF     1856     AND     ITS     DECLARATION THE      UNITED      STATES 

AMENDMENT  OF  THE  DECLARATION THE  AUTHOR'S  RESOLUTIONS 

AND    SPEECH THE    DEMOCRACY   OF    THE    SEA EARL    RUSSELL'S 


12  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION- 

PROPOSITION MR.  SEWARD*S  DILEMMA  AND  RESPONSE THE  CON 
FEDERATE  RIGHTS  AS  BELLIGERENTS CANADA  REBELLION  IN  1838 

OUR  BLOCKADE  MUST  BE  RESPECTED OUR  NAVAL  ARMAMENT 

MR.  SEWARD  AS  A  STATESMAN, PAGES  258-274 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

THE  TRENT  AFFAIR. 

THE  CONFEDERATE  COMMISSIONERS THEIR  AUTHORITY  AND  INSTRUC 
TIONS THEIR  ARRIVAL  IN  HAVANA INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CAP 
TAIN-GENERAL CAPTAIN  WILKES  DECIDES  TO  ARREST  THEM  

THE    TRENT    BROUGHT    TO  RESISTANCE    TALKED    OF  BRITISH 

INDIGNATION     AND     THREATS CAPTAIN    WILKES    RELEASES    THE 

TRENT  HIS     MISTAKE THE     PRISONERS    AT    FORT    WARREN 

THE    OJJESTION    IN    CONGRESS MR.  VALLANDIGHAM's    PREDICTION 

MR.    COX'S    REPLY  EARL     RUSSELL'S     NOTE  MR.      SEWARD's 

REPLY  THE     ARREST    JUSTIFIED  BELLIGERENT     RIGHTS,    AND 

DUTIES    OF    NEUTRALS  A     DIPLOMATIC     DUEL  EARL     RUSSELL 

DISARMED NO    APOLOGY A   DINNER   PARTY THE    RELEASE    OF 

THE  PRISONERS AN  AMERICAN  VICTORY,       ....       PAGES  275-293 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  CONFEDERATE  AND  OTHER  GOVERNORS. 

ISHAM  G.  HARRIS,  OF  TENNESSEE HEADING  THE  LIST  OF  FIVE  EX 
ECUTIVES HIS  OFFICIAL  TRUSTS HIS  CONGRESSIONAL  SERVICE 

GOVERNOR  FROM  1857  TO  ^^5 HIS  ENERGY  AND  ABILITY 

HIS  EXILE,  RETURN,  AND  PREFERMENT SERVICE  AND  POSITION 

IN  THE  SENATE JOHN  LETCHER,  OF  VIRGINIA HIS  EARLY  LIFE 

HIS  SERVICE  IN  VIRGINIA  AND  IN  CONGRESS WATCH-DOG  OF 

THE  TREASURY  HIS   ACTION  AS  GOVERNOR  DURING  THE  CIVIL 

WAR,  AND  HIS  DEATH SAM  :  HOUSTON HIS  ECCENTRIC  LIFE  AND 

HIS  COURAGEOUS  CONDUCT THE  BATTLES  OF  TEXAS  INDEPEND 
ENCE  HIS  SERVICE  TO  ANNEXATION GOVERNOR  AND  SENATOR 

HIS  HESITATION   AS    TO    SECESSION  JOSEPH    E.   BROWN,   OF 

GEORGIA  —  GEORGIA'S  RESOURCES — HER  WISDOM  AT  THE  END  OF 

THE   WAR HER  FOREMOST  GOVERNOR  HIS  BUSINESS  ENERGY 

DURING  THE  WAR  AND  AT  ITS  END  HIS  CONTESTS  WITH  THE 

CONFEDERATE    GOVERNMENT  GOVERNOR  VANCE'S    LETTER  TO 

HIM CONSCRIPTION  DEFIED HIS  CHARACTER HIS  CHARITIES 

HIS  PRESENT  SERVICE ZEBULON  B.  VANCE,  OF  NORTH  CARO 
LINA  BORN  AMONG    THE    MOUNTAINS  REPRESENTATIVE    OF 

BUNCOMBE HIS  LOVE  OF  BOOKS THE  BASIS  OF  HIS  EDUCATION 

—  HIS  UNCLE'S  LIBRARY  —  HIS  EXPERIENCES  IN  CONGRESS  AND 

IN  WAR HIS  EXECUTIVE  ABILITY  AND  INTEGRITY,     .     PAGES  294-308 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    XVI. 

PROPOSITIONS  FOR  PEACE,  AND  THE  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING 

SLAVERY. 

THE    CONFEDERACY    AT   THE    END    OF    1864  GLOOM   AT    RICHMOND 

THE    CALL   FOR   THREE    HUNDRED    THOUSAND    MEN    BY    PRESIDENT 

LINCOLN THE  ATTEMPTS    OF  MR.  STUART,   OF  ILLINOIS,  AND  THE 

AUTHOR  TO  MAKE  PEACE THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  ZEALOTS  DISFAVOR 

ALL  PEACE  PROPOSITIONS  LINCOLN  AND  SEWARD  MAKE  OVER 
TURES  OF  PEACE ATTEMPT  TO  CARRY  THE  THIRTEENTH  AMEND 
MENT  BY  TWO-THIRDS  VOTE  THE  CONFEDERATE  DILEMMA 

COLONIAL    VASSALAGE,  OR    SUBJUGATION SHALL   THE    SOUTH    GO 

TO  ENGLAND  AND  FRANCE  ? WANING   POPULARITY  OF  JEFFERSON 

DAVIS EVENTS  WHICH  LED  TO  THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  CONFED 
ERACY  —  SHERMAN'S  MARCH  TO  THE  SEA  —  THE  TAKING  OF 

SAVANNAH  AND  FORT  FISHER PEACE  PROPOSITIONS  NORTH  AND 

SOUTH    DURING    THE    WAR  RESOLUTIONS    AND    SENTIMENTS 

AGAINST  PEACE THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  PEACE  SENTIMENT  FROM 

l86l  TO  1865 PEACE  BY  COMMISSIONERS,  AND  BY  DELEGATES  TO 

A  NATIONAL  CONVENTION THE  NIAGARA  CORRESPONDENCE  BE 
TWEEN  SANDERS  AND  GREELEY ITS  FAILURE LINCOLN'S  AU 
THORITY  FOR  THE  ATTEMPT VISITS  OF  FRANCIS  P.  BLAIR,  SR.,  TO 

RICHMOND THE  RESULT THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE,  AND  CONFED 
ERATE  EMIGRATION  TO  MEXICO THE  DEBATE  ON  THE  AMEND 
MENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY THE  POWER  TO  AMEND  CONTESTED 

—  THE  AUTHOR'S  SPEECH  IN  FAVOR  OF  THE  RIGHT  TO  ABOLISH, 

IN  REPLY  TO  PENDLETON THE  PASSAGE  OF  THE  AMENDMENT 

BRIBERY  ALLEGED  ITS  RATIFICATION  MR.  SEWARD'S  COM 
MENDATION  OF  THE  DEMOCRATS  WHO  FAVORED  THE  AMENDMENT 

HAMPTON  ROADS  CONFERENCE LINCOLN  AND  SEWARD  THERE 

RESULTLESSNESS  OF  THE  MEETING DEBATES  AND  RESOLU 
TIONS  ABOUT  IT WHAT  IT  ATTEMPTED CONCLUSION  OF  THE 

WAR, PAGES  309-336 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  POLICY  OF  RECONSTRUCTION. 

THE    AMNESTY    PROCLAMATION  THE    OATH    OF    ALLEGIANCE THE 

CONDITIONS  OF  PARDON THE  EXCEPTED  CLASSES RECONSTRUC 
TION  BILL  IN  THE  HOUSE MILITARY  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNORS 

THE  QUALIFICATION  OF  VOTERS ELECTION  OF  MEMBERS  OF  CON 
GRESS  SENATE  AMENDMENTS  REJECTED  THE  BILL  PASSES 

CONGRESS  IT    FAILS    TO    BE    SIGNED    BY    THE    PRESIDENT  ITS 

POLICY  ADOPTED  BY  HIM CRITICISMS  OF  HIS  PARTY MR.  LIN 
COLN'S  MODERATE  VIEWS  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  PROPOSED  EX 
TREME  MEASURES  DEVELOPING AUTHOR'S  ESTIMATE  OF  LINCOLN, 

PAGES  337-345 


14  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  POLICY  OF  RECONSTRUCTION. 

EREIN     IT     DIFFERED     FROM     MR.     LINCOLN'S  THE     END     OF     THE 

BLOCKADE ALL  THE  PORTS  OPEN REVENUE  AND    POSTAL  LAWS 

IN  FORCE THE    CIVIL    PROVISIONAL  GOVERNORS THE    MILITARY 

AID    THEM  THE    MILITARY    NOT    TO    OBSTRUCT     THE    VOTERS  

LOYALTY   AND    WHITE    SUFFRAGE    THE    RULE INTENSE    RADICAL 

DISSATISFACTION SENATOR    HOWE'S    PECULIAR    VIEWS    OF  STATE 

RIGHTS A     STATE    AS    A   MANUFACTURED     PRODUCT! "  IF     THE 

STATES  ARE  ADMITTED" THE  RADICAL  ARGUMENT  AB  INCONVENI- 

ENTI REMARKS  OF  THE  AUTHOR THE  COMPATIBILITY  OF  STATE 

AND  FEDERAL  RIGHTS INDESTRUCTIBLE  STATES  AND  UNION, 

PAGES  346-353 

CHAPTER    XIX. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  STATE  VITALITY. 

A  TEST  OF  POSITIONS  IN   DEBATE SENATOR  JOHNSON    TRIUMPHANTLY 

ANSWERS    SENATOR    HOWE THE    SENATOR    IN   THE   ARENA    WITH 

THE   LOGICAL    RAPIER THE    SOCRATIC     METHOD     OF     JOHNSON 

HOWE'S    COOL    PARRIES    AND   JOHNSON'S    KEENER    THRUSTS  THE 

SCENE  IN  THE  SENATE  COMPARED  WITH  THE  WARREN  HASTINGS 
TRIAL THE  IMMORTALITY  OF  THE  STATES  SECESSION  ORDI 
NANCES  VOID NOT  WAR,  BUT  INSURRECTION THE  FEELING 

SOUTH WAS  PROBATION  NECESSARY? NORTHERN  APPREHEN 
SIONS WAR  RESULTS  SAFE NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT THE 

BALLOT  INEVITABLE PARTISANSHIP  PILLORIED THE  CONSTITU 
TION  AS  THE  PALLADIUM  OF  THE  NORTH  AND  SOUTH,  .  PAGES  354-364 

CHAPTER    XX. 

STATE  RECONSTRUCTION  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

DIALECTICS  AND  SOPHISTRIES  OF  THE  RADICALS THADDEUS  STEVENS 

AS  A  LEADER A  MAN  OF  IRON HIS   TALISMANIC  POWER THE 

VICTORS'  SPOILS  —  PERPETUATION  OF  REPUBLICAN  RULE  —  THE 
DEAD  STATES THE  CONSTITUTION  IGNORED THE  LAW  OF  NA 
TIONS  FOR  THE  SOUTH BELLIGERENT  RULES  IN  PEACE PRIZE 

LAW  FOR  THE  STATES  UNION  ON  CONDITION  OF  NEGRO  SUF 
FRAGE THE  RADICAL  FALLACIES THE  FEDERAL  GANGLION 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CONOJJEST CONFISCATION    AND    CONFEDERATE 

DEBTS INDESTRUCTIBILITY    OF    THE    STATES CONSTITUTIONAL 

RECONSTRUCTION, PAGES  365-374 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

ATTEMPTS  AT  STATE  REORGANIZATION  IN  THE  SOUTH. 

STATUS  OF  THE  COLORED  PEOPLE DEMANDS  FOR  THEIR  ENFRANCHISE 
MENT THE  FIRST  RECONSTRUCTION  ACT PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S 

VETO  —  THE  ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S  'OPINION — MARTIAL  LAW  TO 


CONTENTS. 

GOVERN  THE    SOUTH DISFRANCHISEMENT    OF    THE    INTELLIGENT 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  POLICY ITS  OPERATION REORGANIZA 
TION  IN  TENNESSEE WILLIAM  G.  BROWNLOW  ELECTED  GOVER 
NOR SECESSION  ORDINANCES  ANNULLED CONFEDERATE  ACTS 

AND    OBLIGATIONS    MADE    VOID  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENTS 

DISUNIONISTS     DISFRANCHISED SLAVERY    ABOLISHED  CIVIL 

RIGHTS  GRANTED  TO  COLORED  PEOPLE THEY  ARE  NOT  TO  VOTE, 

HOLD    OFFICE,    OR    SIT    ON  JURIES CONGRESS    APPROVES    OF    THIS 

COURSE TENNESSEE    ADMITTED    TO    FEDERAL    RELATIONS,    JULY 

24,    l866 UNION   SENTIMENT    IN    NORTH    CAROLINA PRESIDENT 

JOHNSON'S  ATTEMPT  TO  REHABILITATE  THAT  STATE — GOVERNOR 
VANCE'S  ADVICE  —  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNOR  HOLDEN  APPOINTED 

HEARTY  REPEAL  OF   THE    SECESSION  ORDINANCE CONVENTION 

AND     LEGISLATIVE     WORK IT     DOES     NOT     SATISFY     CONGRESS  

NORTH  CAROLINA  TO  REMAIN  A  CONQUERED  PROVINCE,    PAGES  375- 

CHAPTER    XXII. 

TEMPORARY  REORGANIZATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

MISSISSIPPI     AND     HER     GOVERNORS    JUDGE     SHARKEY  PRESIDENT 

JOHNSON'S  TERSE  ORDER — LEGISLATION  IN  DETAIL  —  GEORGIA 
RECONSTRUCTED HER  TERRIBLE  CONDITION  IN  1865 ACTION 

OF  HER  PEOPLE TEXAS  RECONSTRUCTED GOVERNOR  HAMILTON 

AND    HIS    PROCLAMATIONS  ALABAMA  VANDALISM    THERE 

GOVERNOR  PARSONS'  DESCRIPTION  OF  IT  —  HIS  SERVICES  —  ALA 
BAMA  CONVENTION OJJARREL  OVER  THE  EPISCOPAL  PRAYERS  — 

MEDDLESOME     MILITARY    ORDER SOUTH    CAROLINA  BRECKEN- 

RIDGE  ON  THE  SOUTH  CAROLINA  CHIVALRY GOVERNORS  MAGRATH, 

PERRY,  AND  ORR OBSTACLES  OVERCOME,      ....       PAGES  389-416 

CHAPTER    XXIII. 

TEMPORARY  REORGANIZATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES.— 

CONTINUED. 

FLORIDA  DEPENDENT  ON  OTHER  STATES HER  CONFEDERATE  GOVER 
NOR,  JOHN  MILTON HIS  SUCCESSOR,  GOVERNOR  WALKER FLOR 
IDA  ADOPTS  THE  THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT LEGISLATION  AS  TO 

NEGROES,  FIRE    ARMS,    MARRIAGE,    CONTRACTS,  AND    VAGRANCY 

VIRGINIA  ATTEMPTS  TO  RECONSTRUCT GENERAL  BUTLER'S  AC 
TION  GENERAL  WEITZEL  AND  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  AT  RICH 
MOND PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  ORDER PIERPONT'S  GOVERNMENT 

ATTEMPTED    REPEAL   OF  WEST  VIRGINIA  SECESSION CONGRESS 

INDIFFERENT INDORSEMENT  OF  JOHNSON'S    POLICY LOUISIANA 

GENERAL   BUTLER  AND  THE  COLORED    PEOPLE HIS   VERSATILE 

AND    VALUABLE    QUALITIES ATTEMPTS    TO    ORGANIZE    COURTS 

REGISTRY,  VOTERS,  AND  GOVERNMENT GENERAL  BANKS  AND  HIS 

EFFORTS  GOVERNOR     HAHN     AND      HIS      PELICANS  GOVERNOR 

WARMOTH      AND     HIS     RADICALS  ONE-TENTH    VOTING    POLICY  — 

PRESIDENT    JOHNSON    INTERVENES  BLOODY    RIOTS     OF    1864- 

WARMOTH     GOVERNOR    —   NEW    CONSTITUTION     IN      1 868 WAR- 


l6  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

MOTH'S  LETTER ITS  STATEMENTS  DENIED OTHER  RIOTS  UN 
TIL  l868 LOUISIANA  RECLAIMED CONFISCATION  AND  RASCAL 
ITY  WINTER  DAVIS'  BILL ARKANSAS  HER  EARLY  MOVE 
MENTS RADICALS  IN  CHARGE LEGISLATIVE  CRUDITIES CON 
VENTION  OF  l866 LABOR  QUESTIONS SOLDIERS  AND  CIVILIANS 

BOTH  TYRANNICAL THE    POLAND    COMMITTEE GARLAND    SAVES 

THE  STATE SKETCH  OF  GOVERNOR,  SENATOR,  AND  ATTORNEY- 
GENERAL  GARLAND, PAGES  417-44! 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU. 

ACT  CREATING  IT ITS  PURPOSES  AND  SCOPE SUPPLEMENTARY  ACT 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  VETO  OVERRULED HIS  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE 

PROPOSED  LAW  —  LARGE  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  THE  BUREAU THE 

COMMISSIONER    AND    HIS    SUBORDINATES    CHARGES     PREFERRED 

AGAINST  THE  COMMISSIONER  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 
BY  FERNANDO  WOOD  OF  NEW- YORK INVESTIGATION  BY  A  COM 
MITTEE  OF  THE  HOUSE  MAJORITY  AND  MINORITY  REPORTS 

ERECTION    OF  THE    HOWARD    UNIVERSITY  THE    BARRY    FARM  

DISASTROUS    ATTEMPT  TO  ESTABLISH  A  COLORED    COLONY  ON  IT 

FAILURE  OF    THE    FREEDMEN'S    BANK DISASTROUS  CLOSE  TO  THE 

WHOLE  SCHEME, PAGES  442-450 

CHAPTER    XXV. 

KU-KLUX  OUTRAGES. 

RESISTANCE     TO     RECONSTRUCTION     MEASURES   INTIMIDATION    AND 

TERRORISM    IN    THE     SOUTH  PREVALENCE    OF     LAWLESSNESS  

SECRET  SOCIETIES THE  KU-KLUX  KLAN VIRGINIA  AN  EXCEP 
TION GENERAL  FORREST'S  TESTIMONY STRENGTH  OF  THE  KU- 
KLUX  ORGANIZATION ITS  MODE  OF  OPERATIONS HISTORY  OF 

OUTRAGES    IN    NORTH    CAROLINA THE    KIRK-BERGEN    REBELLION 

DISREGARD    OF    WRITS    OF    HABEAS    CORPUS IMPEACHMENT    OF 

GOVERNOR  HOLDEN PARTISAN  AND  INCOMPETENT  JUDGES IN 
CENDIARY  ADDRESS  OF  REPUBLICAN  MEMBERS  OF  THE  LEGISLA 
TURE CAUSES  OF  THE  LAWLESSNESS, PAGES  451-463 

CHAPTER    XXVI. 

KU-KLUX  OUTRAGES.—  CONTINUED. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA FRAUD  AND  VIOLENCE  IN  ELECTIONS TWO  CON 
TESTED  ELECTION  .CASES GEORGIA GENERAL  SWAYNE's  RE 
PORT GENERAL  GORDON'S  VIEWS NO  EXCUSE  FOR  KU-KLUX 

ORGANIZATIONS  OR  RAIDS ALABAMA ASSASSINATION  OF  ALEX 
ANDER  BOYD INTIMIDATION  OF  STUDENTS  THE  METHODIST 

CHURCH     SOUTH OUTRAGES     UPON     PREACHERS  MISSISSIPPI  

HOSTILITY   TO    FREE    SCHOOLS OUTRAGES    ON    SCHOOLTEACHERS 

THE  MERIDIAN    RIOT WHIPPING    OF    HUGGINS    AND    McBRIDE 


CONTENTS.  !7 

THE  KU-KLUX  START  IN  TENNESSEE  THEIR  RAPID  SPREAD  IN 

OTHER  SOUTHERN  STATES BAD  GOVERNMENT  CAUSES  SECRET 

ASSOCIATIONS HENCE,  THE  ILLUMINES THE  TUGEND-BUND 

THE  CARBONARI THE  JACOBIN  CLUBS THE  NIHILISTS THE 

FENIANS THE  LOYAL  LEAGUES AND  THE  KU-KLUX  KLANS  

THE  AUTHOR'S  SPEECH  AGAINST  THE  FORCE  BILL,      .      PAGES  464-479 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

RECONSTRUCTION  IN  THE  FIRST  MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

FIVE     MILITARY     DISTRICTS     IN     THE     SOUTH   VIRGINIA     THE    FIRST 

DISTRICT  PROVISIONS     OF    THE     LEGISLATION  CALL    ON    THE 

PRESIDENT  FOR  INFORMATION  HIS  REPLY  MILITARY  COM 
MANDERS  GENERAL  SCHOFIELD  FOR  VIRGINIA HIS  GENERAL 

O'RDERS  —  SUB-DISTRICT  COMMANDERS  —  DIVISION  OF  THE  REPUB 
LICAN  PARTY  INTO  MODERATES  AND  RADICALS INDICTMENT  OF 

HUNNICUTT  FOR  INCENDIARY  LANGUAGE THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS 

THE  VOTE  ON  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION GENERAL    STONEMAN    IN 

COMMAND  OF  DISTRICT GENERAL  CANBY  SUCCEEDS  HIM RE 
MOVALS  FROM  CIVIL  OFFICE ELECTION  OF  GOVERNOR  WALKER 

VIRGINIA  RECONSTRUCTED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS, 

PAGES  480-493 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

RECONSTRUCTION  IN  THE  SECOND  MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

NORTH  AND  SOUTH  CAROLINA GENERAL    SICKLES    ASSIGNED    TO    COM 
MAND  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE    RECONSTRUCTION   ACTS  APPLIED 

REMOVALS  OF  LOCAL  OFFICERS OBJECTIONS  FROM  THE  PRESI 
DENT —  STATE  "STAY  LAWS"  ENFORCED  BY  GENERAL  SICKLES  — 

THE  UNITED    STATES    MARSHAL    OF   NORTH    CAROLINA   DISREGARDS 

THE    "STAY   LAW" — HE   is   SUSTAINED   BY  THE   PRESIDENT  — 

GENERAL  SICKLES  RESIGNS  THE  COMMAND GENERAL  CANBY  SUC 
CEEDS  HIM HE  APPROVES  OF  SICKLES'  COURSE THE  REGISTRA 
TION  OF  VOTERS  IN  THE  TWO  STATES THE  WHITE  AND  COLORED 

VOTES  THE     CONVENTIONS  THE     NEW     CONSTITUTIONS  THE 

LEGISLATURES    AND    THE    LEGISLATION THE    STATE    OFFICERS 

THE    METHODS    OF    THE    "  CARPET-BAGGERS  "  AND    THEIR   NATIVE 

ASSOCIATES NOT  MAKING  BRICKS  WITHOUT    STRAW THE    ISSUE 

OF  FRAUDULENT  BONDS THE    TAXATION    AND    THE    DEBTS THE 

PLUNDERERS  DISPERSED A  JUSTIFIABLE  REVOLUTION CONGRES 
SIONAL  CONDITIONS  OF  REHABILITATION THEIR  ACCEPTANCE 

THE  LONG  PROBATION 1865  TO  1877, PAGES  494-507 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

RECONSTRUCTION  IN  THE  THIRD  MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

'GENERAL     POPE     IN    COMMAND REGISTRATION    AND    CONVENTION    IN 

GEORGIA CONFLICT  BETWEEN  GOVERNOR  JENKINS  AND  GENERAL 

POPE RATIFICATION    OF   THE    CONSTITUTION  GOVERNOR    BUL- 


1 8  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

LOCK    INAUGURATED  COLORED    MEMBERS    EXPELLED    FROM    THE 

LEGISLATURE MILITARY  INVESTIGATION THE  EXPELLED  RE 
ADMITTED  THE  AMENDMENTS  RATIFIED  FINANCIAL  CONDI 
TION FLIGHT  OF  BULLOCK  THE  ELECTION  LAW  OF  1870 

ALABAMA REMOVAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  OFFICERS REGISTRATION 

MOB  IN  MOBILE THE  CONVENTION THE  PROPOSED  CONSTITU 
TION  OBNOXIOUS FAILURE  OF  RATIFICATION  BY  THE  PEOPLE 

STATE      ADMITTED      NOTWITHSTANDING   THE      LEGISLATURE    

STATE  INDEBTEDNESS  FLORIDA  REGISTRATION  CONSTITU 
TIONAL  CONVENTION DIVISION  OF  THE  REPUBLICANS  INTO  TWO 

FACTIONS  UNITY     RESTORED,    AND    A     CONSTITUTION    VOTED  

A  MILITARY  OFFICER  ACTS  AS  TEMPORARY  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  CON 
VENTION  CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  ELECTION  OF 

GOVERNOR  REED CHARGES  OF  FRAUD  IN  THE  ELECTION AD 
MISSION  OF  THE  STATE  INTO  THE  UNION THE  LEGISLATURE 

PROPOSED  IMPEACHMENT  OF  GOVERNOR  REED  JUDICIAL  PRO 
CEEDINGS  THE  IMPEACHMENT  ABANDONED  NEW  IMPEACH 
MENT  PROPOSED BRIBERY,  CORRUPTION,  AND  FRAUD  CHARGED 

AGAINST    THE    GOVERNOR VOTE  AGAINST    IMPEACHMENT ACTS 

OF  USURPATION LEGISLATIVE  LEGERDEMAIN REPUBLICAN  CAN 
DIDATE  "  COUNTED  IN" THE  OSBORN  RING A  THIRD  ATTEMPT 

AT  IMPEACHMENT  ALSO  FAILS THE  DEMOCRATS  REGAIN  CON 
TROL  OF  THE  STATE FINANCIAL  CONDITION,  .  .  PAGES  508-524 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

RECONSTRUCTION  IN  THE  FOURTH  MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

MISSISSIPPI REGISTRATION THE  DEMOCRATS  ALLOW  THE  ELECTION 

FOR    CONVENTION    TO     GO    BY    DEFAULT  APPREHENSIONS     OF    A 

NEGRO  OUTBREAK COURT-MARTIALING  OF  A  NEWSPAPER  EDITOR 

THE   CONSTITUTIONAL    CONVENTION LIBERAL   COMPENSATION 

TO  DELEGATES  AND  OFFICERS GENERAL  AMES  APPOINTED  PRO 
VISIONAL  GOVERNOR,  AND  GOVERNOR  HUMPHREYS  OUSTED  AT  THE 
POINT  OF  THE  BAYONET THE  CONSTITUTION  DEFEATED EX- 
SENATOR  BROWN'S  EXPLANATION  OF  THE  VOTE MODERATION  IN 

POLITICS OBNOXIOUS  FEATURES  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  ELIMI 
NATED THE  CONSTITUTION  RATIFIED  CORRESPONDENCE  BE 
TWEEN  PRESIDENT  GRANT  AND  JUDGE  DENT THE  FALL  ELECTION 

OF  1869 JAMES  L.   ALCORN  CHOSEN  GOVERNOR HE  DECLINES 

THE  "PROVISIONAL"  APPOINTMENT  —  ELECTIONS  TO  THE  UNITED 
STATES  SENATE A  COLORED  SENATOR ADMISSION  OF  MISSIS 
SIPPI  TO  THE  UNION MEETING  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE GOV 
ERNOR  ALCORN'S  INAUGURAL  —  A  MURDER  CASE  —  THE  NEW  CON 
STITUTION THE  ELECTIONS  OF  l8yi  CENSUS  AND  TAXATION 

DEMOCRATIC  VICTORY  IN  1875 ARKANSAS HIGH-HANDED  MILI 
TARY  INTERFERENCE  WITH  STATE  OFFICIALS  THE  CONSTITU 
TIONAL  CONVENTION ELECTION  FRAUDS CHARGES  OF  FRAUD 

ON  ONE  SIDE,  AND    OF   INTIMIDATION    ON    THE    OTHER MILITARY 

RULE  TERMINATED  AND    THE    STATE    RESTORED    TO    THE    UNION 

FUNDING   THE    PUBLIC    DEBT THE    HOLFORD    BONDS HOSTILITY 

BETWEEN  GOVERNOR    CLAYTON   AND    LIEUT. -GOV.   JOHNSON THE 


CONTENTS.  JQ. 

FALL     ELECTION     OF     1872  —  MORE    WHOLESALE    FRAUDS—    THE 

BAXTER-BROOKS  CONFLICT ADOPTION    OF    THE  CONSTITUTION  OF 

l874 THE  PARTIES  AND  THEIR  LEADERS    EXCHANGING  POSITIONS     • 

PRESIDENT     GRANT    CHANGES    WITH     THEM REPORT     OF     THE 

POLAND  INVESTIGATING  COMMITTEE STATE  FINANCES, 

PAGES  525-542 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

RECONSTRUCTION  IN  THE  FIFTH  MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

LOUISIANA GENERAL    SHERIDAN'S    REMOVAL    OF    STATE  OFFICIALS 

HIS    QUARREL    WITH,  AND    REMOVAL    OF,  GOVERNOR  WELLS THE 

PRESIDENT'S  ORDER  AS  TO  REGISTRATION  DISREGARDED — RESULTS 

OF    REGISTRATION FORTY    THOUSAND    WHITES    EXCLUDED    FROM 

SUFFRAGE    REMOVAL     AND      APPOINTMENT      OF    NEW     ORLEANS 

ALDERMEN  AND  OTHER  OFFICERS  GENERAL  SHERIDAN  SUC 
CEEDED  BY  GENERAL  HANCOCK HIS  SPECIAL  ORDER  ON  ASSUM 
ING  COMMAND RE-INSTATEMENT  OF  STATE  OFFICIALS MEETING 

OF  THE  STATE  CONVENTION THE    NEW    CONSTITUTION   R ATIFIED 

BY    THE    PEOPLE GENERAL    HANCOCK'S    REMOVAL    OF    OFFICIALS 

NOT  SUSTAINED  BY  GENERAL  GRANT GENERAL  HANCOCK  RE 
LIEVED  AT  HIS  OWN  REQUEST THE  DISFRANCHISING  CLAUSE  OF 

THE  CONSTITUTION THE  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  IN  NOVEMBER, 

l868 IMMENSE  DEMOCRATIC  MAJORITIES EXPLANATION  OF  THE 

FACTS   THE     NEGROES     TERRORIZED     AND     LARGE     NUMBERS    OF 

THEM     KILLED THE     LEGISLATURE     OF    1869 GOVERNOR    WAR- 

MOTH'S  MESSAGE MEASURES  OF  SOCIAL  EQUALITY  AND  OF  PUBLIC 

PLUNDER LOW  OPINION  OF  THE  MEMBERS LOBBYING  AND  BRIB 
ING  BY  THE  "BEST  PEOPLE" THE  STATE  AUDITOR  IMPEACHED 

THE  ELECTION  OF  NOVEMBER,  1870 THE  REPUBLICANS  TRIUMPH 
ANT REPEAL  OF  THE  DISFRANCHISING  CLAUSE  QUARREL  BE 
TWEEN  THE  REPUBLICAN  FACTIONS MOVEMENTS  AND  COUNTER- 
MOVEMENTS  CHARACTER  OF  GOVERNOR  WARMOTH  HIS  EX 
POSURE  OF  LEGISLATIVE  PROFLIGACY  MUTUAL  CHARGES  OF 

KNAVERY   BETWEEN    THE    REPUBLICAN  LEADERS HOW  THEY  ALL 

ENRICHED  THEMSELVES THE  FALL  ELECTION  OF  1872 TWO  RE 
TURNING  BOARDS  DECIDING  THE  RESULTS  DIFFERENTLY RIVAL 

LEGISLATURES   WARMOTH     IMPEACHED  PINCHBACK     ASSUMES 

THE  EXECUTIVE  OFFICE,  AND  IS  SUSTAINED    BY    PRESIDENT    GRANT 

THE  PACKARD  LEGISLATURE,  AND  ITS  METHODS THE  McENERY 

LEGISLATURE  ORGANIZED  AND  SUSTAINED  TWO  GOVERNORS 

KELLOGG  AND  McENERY  INAUGURATED  —  SENATE  COMMITTEE  OF 
INQUIRY — MCENERY  SUSTAINED  BY  THE  PEOPLE — ARREST  OF  THE 
MCENERY  LEGISLATURE — MILITARY  RECOGNITION  OF  THE  KEL 
LOGG  GOVERNMENT McENERY  GIVES  UP  THE  FIGHT SANGUIN 
ARY  CONFLICTS  IN  THE  PARISHES THE  COUSHATTA  MASSACRE  — 

UPRISING  IN  NEW  ORLEANS    AGAINST    THE    KELLOGG    GOVERNMENT 

PROCLAMATION    BY  THE   PRESIDENT KELLOGG'S    GOVERNMENT 

RE-ESTABLISHED    BY    THE    MILITARY COMPROMISE    EFFECTED  BY 

A  HOUSE  COMMITTEE FINANCIAL  STATEMENT  TEXAS GEN 
ERAL  SHERIDAN'S  REPORT  OF  THE  BAD  CONDITION  OF  AFFAIRS  — 

GENERAL  GRIFFIN'S  ORDER REMOVAL  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  AND 


20  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

OTHER    STATE    OFFICIALS GENERAL     SHERIDAN'S     REPORT  HIS 

REFLECTIONS     ON     PRESIDENT    JOHNSON    THE     CONSTITUTIONAL 

CONVENTION STATISTICS     OF     CRIME  THE     CONSTITUTIONS     OF 

l868    AND    1876 GENERAL    REYNOLDS    CO-OPERATING    WITH     THE 

RADICALS FINANCIAL  STATEMENT, PAGES  543-577 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 

IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

SPRING  OF  1865 SURRENDER  AT  APPOMATTOX SECOND  INAUGURA 
TION  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN SCENE  IN  FORD'S  THEATRE THE 

ASSASSINATION JOHNSON'S  ACCESSION PRELIMINARIES  TO  IM 
PEACHMENT  GROUNDS  FOR  THE  IMPEACHMENT MAJORITY  RE 
PORT  OF  JUDICIARY  COMMITTEE PRETEXTS  FOR  IMPEACHMENT 

DISMISSAL  OF  STANTON  ALLEGED  CONSPIRACY  BETWEEN  GEN. 

LORENZO  THOMAS  AND  THE  PRESIDENT  IS   "  SWINGING  ROUND 

THE  CIRCLE  "  A  MISDEMEANOR  ? THE  SENATE  AS  A  COURT IN 
STANCES  OF  IMPEACHMENT SPLENDID  ARRAY  OF  COUNSEL 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL  STANBERY THE  EXCITEMENT  AND  VOTE 

MINOR   HISTORY   OF   THE    TRIAL  DOUBTFUL   SENATORS  MR. 

WARDEN'S  RECITAL  —  SENATOR  GRIMES  AND  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON 
MEET  WITH  REVERDY  JOHNSON SENATOR  HENDERSON'S  DOUBT 
FUL  VOTE —  THE  AUTHOR'S  PART — DAYBREAKS  FOR  THE  PRESI 
DENT,  PAGES  578-594 

CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

AMNESTY. 

THE  VICISSITUDES  OF  THIS  QUESTION CARRIED  ONCE  IN  THE  HOUSE 

COLORED  VOTES  FOR  IT GENERAL  BUTLER'S  BILL  OF  GRACE 

WITHOUT  GRACE,  AND  PUNITORY  PARDON MILITARY  REPRESSION 

AND  CIVIL  OPPRESSION RANCOR  CHERISHED HOPES  OF  RECON 
CILIATION  MOCKED SPURIOUS  SPIRIT  OF  AMNESTY MR.  GREE- 

LEY'S   NOMINATION ITS    CAUSES  MR.    LINCOLN'S   PURPOSE  OF 

MERCY — MR.  ELAINE'S  ACTION  —  THE  PAGAN  POLICIES  OF  REPUB 
LICANS EXECUTIVE  PARDONS  AND  THE  AMNESTY  OF  THE  CON 
STITUTIONAL  AMENDMENT, PAGES  595-601 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

TEST  OATHS  AND  PENALTIES. 

THEIR  OPERATION  IN  THE   ONE-TENTH   RECONSTRUCTION    PLAN   OF 

HENRY  WINTER  DAVIS UNFAIRNESS  TO  UNIONISTS TEST  OATHS 

DESTRUCTIVE  OF  TRIAL  BY  JURY EFFORTS  AT  TEST  OATH  RE 
PEAL  MODIFICATION  PROPOSED  BY  THE  REPUBLICANS  THE 

AUTHOR'S  BILLS  —  POLITICAL  OATHS  IN  FRANCE  AND  ENGLAND  — 
THE  PURITAN  ATTITUDE NOTABLE  CHANGE  IN  ENGLISH  SENTI 
MENT  AND  LAW THE  OBLIGATION  OF  AN  OATH OATH-TAKING 


CONTENTS.  21 

AND  OATH-BREAKING THE  MISSOURI  IRON-CLAD MISSOURI  PER 
SECUTION     OF     SISTERS     OF    CHARITY  THE     TEST     OATH    IN    THE 

SUPREME     COURT THE     GARLAND     CASE  SENATOR    GARLAND'S 

NOBLE  STAND  FOR  THE  REPEAL  OF  THE  TEST  OATHS,    .      PAGES  6o2-6l6 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

POLITICAL  CAMPAIGNS  AND  ISSUES  UP  TO  1876. 

THE    CONTEST    OF    1864 McCLELLAN    AND    LINCOLN MILITARY  AND 

CIVIC    VIRTUES    IN    ISSUE ARM-IN-ARM    CONVENTION 1 868   AND 

ITS  ISSUES  ; GOVERNOR  SEYMOUR HIS    SPEECHES  AND  CONDUCT 

THE  PATRIOTISM  OF  THE  DEMOCRACY INCREASE  OF  OUR  AREA 

AND  POWER  UNDER  DEMOCRATIC    ADMINISTRATION THE    NUMBER 

OF    DEMOCRATIC    VOTERS    AND    SOLDIERS SEYMOUR   DEFEATED 

JUDGE  BLACK  ON  THE  CARPET-BAGGER HORACE  GREELEY  TRIED, 

AS    A    BRIDGE    FOR    HONESTY   AND    AMNESTY  GREELEY'S   DEFEAT 

ON   AN    INCREASED    VOTE  OTHER  OJJESTIONS  OF  FEDERAL  LEGIS 
LATION  CIVIL   RIGHTS  ECONOMIES  CURRENCY BAYONETS 

AT  THE  POLLS ABRAM    S.  HEWITT'S    SPLENDID   CHAMPIONSHIP  OF 

FREEDOM    VERSUS  FORCE ENGLISH    STATUTES    AND    LAW  ON   THE 

SUFFRAGE ABOLITION  OF  MILITARY    INTERFERENCE  WITH    ELEC 
TIONS,       PAGES  617-635 

CHAPTER   XXXVI. 

THE  FAMOUS  ELECTORAL  COMMISSION. 

THE    FORTY-FOURTH    CONGRESS    ASSEMBLES THE    GATHERING    STORM 

DIVISION    OF    PARTIES OPINIONS   ON    THE    MODE    OF    COUNTING 

THE    ELECTORAL    VOTE PERPLEXITY    OF    THE    PROBLEMS COM 
MITTEES  RAISED  UNDER   KNOTT's    RESOLUTION HOW  THEY  WERE 

CONSTITUTED  THE    SECRETS    OF    THE     COMMITTEES     NOW    FIRST 

DIVULGED THEIR   DEBATES   AND    THE   RESULTS SEPARATE  AND 

JOINT  ACTION CHANCES   BY  DRAWING   CUTS THE    SUPREME  JUS 
TICES  CALLED  IN THE  SHREWD  DEVICES  OF  THE  REPUBLICANS 

HOW   THE     SECRETS   WERE    KEPT  VARIOUS    DRAFTS    OF    BILLS 

RUMORS     OF    WAR PREPARATIONS  .  FOR    THE     USE     OF     FEDERAL 

TROOPS FINAL    REPORT    TO    CONGRESS    AFTER   THE    SECRET    DIS 
CUSSIONS,     PAGES  636-650 

CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

THE  ELECTORAL  COUNT  OF   1877. 

EVENTFUL   DAYS    OF    HISTORY MEETING   OF   THE    HOUSES    TO    COUNT 

THE    VOTE  FLORIDA    IS    REACHED  EXCITEMENT  RECESS  - 

ELECTORAL    COMMISSION  MEETS  THE   OLD    SENATE  ROOM —  THE 

COMMISSION    ORGANIZED THE   ATTORNEYS THE  JUDGMENT    ON 

FLORIDA    JUDGE      BRADLEY    HIS    NON-SEQU1TUR ALIUNDE- 

ERMINE     TAINTED   REPUBLICAN     TRIUMPH  DEMOCRATIC     DE 
SPONDENCY THE    COUNT  RESUMED SOUTH  CAROLINA LOUIS- 


22         THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

IANA THE    AUTHOR'S    SPEECH SPEECHES    OF    OTHER    MEMBERS 

SCATHING      INVECTIVES     OF    JUDGE     BLACK    AND    JOSEPH     S.     C. 

BLACKBURN OREGON,    WISCONSIN,    AND    VERMONT   VOTES THE 

CONCLUSION THE    STARS  AND    STRIPES  LOWERED DE  FACTO  AND 

DE  JURE, PAGES  651-668 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 

PRESIDENT  HAYES'  ADMINISTRATION  AND  ITS  RESULTS. 

MR.  HAYES'  OJJALITIES — HIS  FORMER  POPULARITY  —  OJJESTIONS  DUR 
ING    HIS    ADMINISTRATION SILVER   AND    GOLD RESUMPTION    OF 

SPECIE  PAYMENTS RESUMPTION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  STATE  GOV 
ERNMENT  IN  THE  SOUTH REPEAL  OF  THE  BANKRUPTCY  ACT 

PARTY    PLATFORMS GENERAL    GRANT GENERAL    HANCOCK,    AS 

SOLDIER      AND      CIVILIAN    GARFIELD      SUCCEEDS      HAYES    HIS 

CAREER HIS     INAUGURATION  HIS     LEADER     IN     THE     CABINET, 

ELAINE  THE  ASSASSINATION  OF  PRESIDENT  GARFIELD  AR 
THUR'S  SUCCESSION THE  NOTABLE  EVENT  OF  HIS  ADMINISTRA 
TION —  PENDLETON'S  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM  BILL,  .  PAGES  669-676 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

THE  INAUGURATION  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  CLEVELAND. 

THE    PROVINCE    OF    HISTORY WHAT    THE    SOUTH    HAS  DONE  TO  RECU 
PERATE  BLACK  AND  WHITE NEW  ORLEANS  EXPOSITION THE 

PLATFORM    OF  1884 GOVERNOR    CLEVELAND     ITS    EXPONENT A 

CATO INAUGURATIONS    OF    l8oi,    AND    1885 THE    NEW    ORDER, 

BORN  OF  THE    GREAT    CONFLICT THE    FALSEHOOD    OF  EXTREMES, 

AND  THE  PERMANENCY  OF  MODERATION,        ....        PAGES  677-684 

CHAPTER  XL. 

MATERIAL  PROGRESS  IN  THREE  DECADES. 

RESULTS    OF   CENSUSES OBJECT    OF    CENSUS    FROM  1790 THE  LEGIS 
LATION  FOR  THE  TENTH  CENSUS,  OF   l88o ITS  COMPLETENESS 

STAR    OF    EMPIRE    AND    CENTRE    OF    POPULATION  IN  l88o SOCIAL 

STATISTICS CENTENNIAL   YEAR OUR    INCREASE    FROM    DECADE 

TO  DECADE DETAILS    OF    ADVANCEMENT  FEDERAL  TRADE  AND 

TARIFF     RESTRICTIONS HINDRANCES     TO     PHYSICAL     GROWTH  

ODDITIES  OF  THE  CENSUS THE  PUBLIC  LANDS PRIMARY  OBJECT 

OF    THE    CENSUS THE    APPORTIONMENT    OF    REPRESENTATION 

RESULT    OF    THE  APPORTIONMENT INCREASE    OF     THE    SOUTH    IN 

POLITICAL    POWER POPULATION,    AND    NOT    VOTES,  THE    BASIS 

OUR      UNIOJJE     SYSTEM    THE     MUNIMENTS     OF     PUBLIC     LIBERTY 

FOUNDED  ON  THE  CENSUS  OF  POPULATION OUR  LIGHT  OF  LIB 
ERTY,  PAGES  685-699 

MAP  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, '.  7°° 

INDEX, 701 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 


Engraved  Title, 

With  Portrait  of  the  Author. 

Representative  Statesmen. 

Ante-Helium. 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN,  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 

JOHN   J.   CRITTENDEN,  JEREMIAH   S.   BLACK, 

CLEMENT   L.  VALLANDIGHAM. 
PAGE  25. 

> 

Confederate  Governors. 

ISHAM   G.  HARRIS,  JOHN  LETCHER, 

SAMUEL   HOUSTON,  JOSEPH  E.  BROWN, 

ZEBULON   B.  VANCE. 
PAGE  120. 


Military  Governors. 


GEN.  DANIEL   E.  SICKLES,  GEN.  E.  O.  C.  ORD, 

GEN.  WINFIELD   S.  HANCOCK,    GEN.  GEO.  H.  THOMAS, 

GEN.  GEORGE   STONEMAN. 

PAGE  232. 


24  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Reconstruction  Governors. 

WILLIAM  L.  SHARKEY,  WILLIAM   G.  BRt>WNLOWr 

GEORGE   S.  HOUSTON,  AUGUSTUS   H.  GARLAND, 

WILLIAM  W.  HOLDEN. 
PAGE  344. 

Reconstruction  Statesmen. 

THOMAS   A.  HENDRICKS,  BENJAMIN   H.  HILL, 

ANDREW  JOHNSON,  ALLEN  G.  THURMAN, 

JAMES   A.  GARFIELD. 

PAGE  456. 


Diplomats  and  Statesmen. 

WILLIAM   H.  REWARD,  JOHN  SLIDELL, 

CAPT.  CHARLES  WILKES,  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS, 

SALMON  P.  CHASE. 

PAGE  552. 

Diplomats  and  Statesmen. 

THOMAS  F.  BAYARD,  L.  Q.  C.  LAMAR, 

THADDEUS   STEVENS,  JAMES   G.  BLAINE, 

GROVER  CLEVELAND. 

PAGE  664. 


REPRESENTATIVE  STATESMEN  ANTE-BELLUM. 


r^T  T  A  n'rr^n    T 

CHAPTER  I; 


THE  CAPITOL  AT  WASHINGTON  —  THE  OLD  HALLS  OF  LEGISLATION  —  THE  SEN 
ATE  OF  WORTHIES  — DEDICATION  OF  THE  NEW  HOUSE  —  MAIDEN  SPEECH 
THEREIN  —  THE  USE  OF  AN  OPPOSITION  PARTY  —  THE  PROXIMATE  CAUSES 
OF  THE  CIVIL  CONFLICT— ANCIENT  ROMAN  POLICY— EXCESSES  NORTH  AND 
SOUTH  —  FUTILE  EFFORTS  FOR  ADJUSTMENT  —  THE  THEORY  OF  SECESSION 
—  CONSEQUENCES  OF  SECESSION  —  THE  WISDOM  OF  CIVISM. 

THE  Capitol  of  the  United  States  is  not  only  superb  as  an  edifice, 
but,  next  to  St.  Peter's  in  Rome,  the  most  elaborate  and  elegant 
structure  in  the  world.  Between  it  and  the  palace  of  the  Spanish 
Cortez,  the  Palace  d' Elysee  of  the  Corps  Legislatif,  in  Paris,  the 
German  Reichstag-gebaude,  and  other  edifices  in  Europe  dedicated  to  par 
liamentary  meetings,  no  comparison  can  be  made.  As  between  it  and  the 
Westminster  Palace,  where  the  English  Parliament  sits,  there  are  few  points 
of  comparison.  Their  different  orders  of  architecture  furnish  simply  points 
of  contrast.  Westminster  Palace  is  Gothic-Tudor.  The  United  States  Cap 
itol  is  Greek  of  the  Corinthian  order.  The  former  is  built  of  brown  lime 
stone,  the  latter  of  pure  white  marble.  A  great  feature  of  the  Palace  is  its 
tower  clock.  The  Capitol  has  a  lofty  iron  dome.  One  registers  the  time  of 
passing  dynasties  ;  the  other  is  typical  of  the  enduring  majesty  of  the  people. 
The  Palace  stands  on  the  bank  of  the  Thames  —  flat  and  subject  to  overflow. 
The  Capitol  has  an  Acropolis  for  its  situation.  It  has  not  the  height  nor 
the  surroundings  of  that  rocky  eminence  which  gave  to  Athens  its  crowning 
glory  ;  but  it  is  so  set  upon  a  hill  that,  with  its  dome  capped  by  the  Goddess 
of  Liberty,  it  makes  a  grand  beacon  of  attraction  for  all  the  country  round. 

It  is  an  event  in  any  one's  life  to  enter  this  Capitol  and  examine  its  excel 
lencies  of  decoration.  'It  excites  one's  interest  to  enter  the  old  Senate  and 
House  chambers.  The  former  is  now  used  by  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the 
latter  is  a  statuary-gallery  where  the  civic  and  martial  heroes  of  the  states 
are  apotheosized.  It  is  more  exciting,  however,  to  enter  the  legislative  halls 
when  the  representatives  of  states  and  people  are  in  convocation  and  debate. 


26  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Notwithstanding  a  quarter  of  a  century  has  passed  since  the  writer  first 
entered  the  Capitol  to  take  a  part  in  the  making  of  laws,  the  fascination  and 
exaltation  in  sympathy  with  the  young  member  never  fails  to  be  aroused 
again,  when  he  looks  down  from  the  gallery  upon  the  representatives  of  so 
many  diverse  interests  and  so  many  millions  of  people. 

...  It  was  .the^fyctane:  of  the  author  to  be  a  member  when  the  lower  House 
of;  Congress-*  sat* *ifi  **flie,  old  hall.  The  associations  of  a  thousand  debates 
.  g^ye.v.ejoe.tqfrs  aVq&es  and  pillars.  Every  stone  and  tablet  echoed  the  elder 
•VftCK'a&'itwas'SaTd/the  'better  day  of  oratory  and  patriotism.  In  1864  each 
state  of  the  Union  was  invited  by  Congress  to  erect  in  this  hall  the  statues 
of  two  of  its  most  illustrious  civic  or  martial  heroes.  Rhode  Island  was  the 
first  to  respond  to  the  invitation.  She  sent,  in  1871,  two  life-size  marble 
statues  ;  —  one  of  Major-Gen.  Nathaniel  Greene,  in  the  Continental  uniform, 
the  other  of  Roger  Williams.  The  latter  is  the  artist's  ideal  of  her  civic 
hero,  and  not  an  effigy  of  the  man.  Connecticut  followed,  in  1872,  with 
heroic  statues,  in  marble,  of  Jonathan  Trumbull,  the  original  "  Brother  Jon 
athan,"  and  Roger  Sherman.  New-York  gave,  in  1873,  life-size  statues,  in 
bronze,  of  Gen.  George  Clinton,  a  Democrat  par  excellence,  and  Robert 
R.  Livingston,  in  his  chancellor's  robes.  In  1876,  Massachusetts  gave 
semi-heroic  statues,  in  marble,  of  John  Winthrop,  her  first  governor,  and 
Samuel  Adams.  Winthrop  is  represented  as  landing  with  the  charter  of 
1630,  and  Adams  as  making  his  famous  protest.  Vermont  gave,  the  same 
year,  a  marble  heroic  statue  of  Ethan  Allen,  in  the  Continental  uniform, 
representing  that  fiery  soldier  when  demanding  the  surrender  of  Ticonderoga 
*'  in  the  name  of  the  Great  Jehovah  and  the  Continental  Congress."  Her 
civic  effigy,  contributed  in  1880,  represents  — in  marble,  semi-heroic — Jacob 
Collamer  as  addressing  the  Senate  on  Constitutional  law.  Maine  set  up,  the 
same  year,  a  semi-heroic  statue,  in  marble,  of  her  first  governor,  William 
King.  The  other  states  will  soon  fill  the  vacant  niches  ;  and  here,  while  this 
Union  shall  endure,  will  stand  the  mute  but  eloquent  Senate  of  American 
Worthies.  Passing  through  this  shrine  to  the  present  halls  of  legislation, 
what  Senator  or  Representative  can  fail  to  breathe  in  some  inspiration  of  the 
devotion  to  Liberty  and  Justice  that  is  here  commemorated  ! 

This  historic  hall,  whose  vaulted  roof  still  whispers  the  eloquence  of  the 
past,  has  long  been  silent  to  the  lofty  flights  of  forensic  discussion  and  de 
bate  for  which  the  days  of  Clay,  and  Webster,  and  Calhoun  were  famous. 
It  was  abandoned  twenty-eight  years  ago  by  the  House  of  Representatives 
for  the  more  commodious  chamber  now  occupied  by  that  body. — The  i6th 
of  December,  1857,  *s  memorable  in  the  annals  of  Congress.  Looking 
back  to  that  clay,  the  writer  can  see  the  members  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  take  up  the  line  of  march  out  of  the  old  shadowy  and  murmur 
ous  chamber,  into  the  new  hall  with  its  ornate  and  gilded  interior.  The 
scene  is  intense  in  a  rare  dramatic  quality.  Above  shine  in  vari-colored 


USE  OF  AN  OPPOSITION  PARTY. 


27 


light,  the  escutcheons  of  thirty  states ;  around  sit  the  members  upon  richly- 
carved  oaken  chairs.       Already  arrayed  upon  either  side  are  the  sections 
in  mutual  animosity.     The  Republicans  take  the  left  of  the  Speaker,  the 
Democrats  the  right.     James  C.  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  a  full  roseate-faced 
gentleman  of  large  build  and  ringing  metallic  voice,  is  in  the  chair.     James 
C.    Allen,   of  Illinois,  sits  below  him  in  the  clerk's  seat.     The  Rev.   Mr. 
Carothers  offers  an  appropriate  and  inspiring  prayer.     He  asks  the  Divine 
favor   upon  those    in   authority ;    and   then,  with    trembling   tones,   he  im 
plores  that  the  hall  just  dedicated  as  the  place  wherein  the  political  and  con 
stitutional  rights  of  our  countrymen  shall  ever  be  maintained  and  defended, 
may  be  a  temple  of  honor  and  glory  to  this  land. —  "May  the  deliberations 
therein  make  our  nation  the  praise  of  the  whole  earth,  for  Christ's  sake." 
A  solemn  hush  succeeds  this  invocation.     The  routine  of  journal  reading ; 
a  reference  of  the  Agricultural  College  bill,  upon  the  request  of  the  then 
member,  now  Senator,  from  Vermont,  Justin  S.  Merrill ;  and  the  presentation 
of  a  communication  regarding  the  chaplaincy  from  the  clergy  of  Washington, 
are  followed  by  the  drawing  of  seats  for  the  members,  who  retire  to  the  open 
space  in  the  hall.     A  page  with  bandaged  eyes  makes  the  award,  and  one 
by  one  the  members  are  seated.     Then,  by  the  courtesy  of  the  chairman  of 
the  Printing  Committee,  Mr.  Smith,  of  Tennessee,  a  young  member  from 
Ohio  is  allowed  to  take  the  floor.     He  addresses  the  Speaker  with  timidity 
.and  modesty,  amid  many  interruptions   by   Humphrey   Marshall,  of  Ken 
tucky,  Mr.  Bocock,  of  Virginia,   Judge    Hughes,  of  Indiana,  George  W. 
Jones,  of  Tennessee,  and  General  Quitman,  of  Mississippi,  each  of  whom 
bristles  with  points  of  order  against  the  points  of  the  orator.     But  that  young 
member  is  soon  observed  by  a  quiet  House.     Many  listen  to  him  —  perhaps 
to  judge  of  the  acoustic  property  of  the  hall,  some  because  of  the  nature  of 
the  debate  ;   and  then,  after  a  few  minutes,  all  become  excited  !     Again  and 
again   the  shrill  and   high   tones  of  Mr.  Speaker  Orr  are  heard  above  the 
uproar.     He   exclaims:    "  This   is   a  motion  to  print  extra   copies   of  the 
President's  message.     Debate  on  the  subject  of  the  message  is,  therefore,  in 
order  —  upon  which  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  has  the  floor  !  "     That  gentle 
man  is  now  the  writer.     His  theme  was  the  Lecompton  Constitution.     As 
the  questions  discussed  involved  the  great  issues  leading  to  war  or  peace, 
his  interest  in  the  mise  en  sc&ne  became  less  ;  but  his  maiden  speech  —  the 
maiden  speech  in  the  new  chamber — began  under  influences  anything  but 
composing. 

This  preliminary  etching  of  the  Capitol  is  intended  only  to  limn  the 
circumstances  as  they  affected  the  young  and  ambitious  legislator ;  or,  as 
a  prologue  to  the  stirring  scenes  which  greeted  his  first  appearance  in  the 
r6le  of  orator  under  such  grave  conditions. 

The  times  were  then  sadly  out  of  joint.  The  author  had  a  keen  antici 
pation  of  the  consequences  of  sectionalism.  His  first  debate  intensified  this 


28  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

anticipation.  He  had  warned  and  worked,  from  his  first  entrance  into  pub 
lic  life,  against  the  passionate  zealotry  of  both  sections.  He  denounced  as 
equally  perilous  the  policy  and  theory  of  secession,  and  the  provocations 
and  conduct  of  the  other  extreme.  He  voted  to  avert  the  impending  struggle 
by  every  measure  of  adjustment.  He  was  secretary  of  the  Border  states 
convention  of  congressmen  which  sought  to  avoid  trouble  and  reconcile  the 
sections.  Along  with  such  men  as  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  Thomas  Corwin, 
Charles  Francis  Adams,  John  J.  Crittenden,  and  the  giants  of  those  days,  he 
was  content  to  be  an  humble  advocate  of  every  proposition  tending  to  allay 
the  excitement  growing  out  of  the  fugitive  slave  law,  the  extension  of  slavery 
into  the  territories,  and  kindred  questions.  When  the  war  came,  he  aided 
the  Administration  by  his  votes  for  money  and  men  to  maintain  the  Federal 
authority. 

The  author  believed  then,  as  he  believes  now,  that  in  all  representative 
governments  a  constitutional  opposition  is  one  of  the  safeguards  of  liberty  ; 
and  that  it  is  a  legislator's  duty  to  challenge  freely  the  conduct  of  the  Admin 
istration  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  means  committed  to  it  by  the  people. 
Because  the  time  of  war  is  the  time  of  danger,  it  does  not  follow  that 
criticism  by  the  opposition  at  such  a  period  may  not  be  consistent  with  pat 
riotism.  England  was  saved  from  disgrace  in  the  Crimean  war  by  a  defiant 
opposition,  which  was  led  by  the  London  Times.  A  government  may  be 
magnified  by  opposing  the  weakness  of  its  administration.  It  may  be  saved 
and  strengthened  by  a  vigorous  criticism  upon  an  imbecile  party  or  corrupt 
policy ;  otherwise  the  very  function  of  government  might  be  palsied  by  the 
incapacity  or  corruption  of  the  functionary.  And  should  we  be  less  heedful 
how  we  undignify  the  office  by  an  undue  contempt  of  the  officer,  than  how 
we  unduly  dignify  the  officer  at  the  expense  of  the  office  ?  It  is  a  wise  say 
ing  that  "  the  best  men  are  not  always  the  best  in  regard  to  society." 

In  all  free  countries  an  opposition  is  an  element  of  the  government.  It  is 
as  indispensable  to  the  safety  of  the  realm  as  a  free  press  or  a  free  pulpit.  To 
dispense  with  it  is  to  endanger,  if  not  to  dispense  with,  liberty.  The  valiant 
arm  of  the  soldier  owes  much  of  its  strength  to  those  who,  regardless  of  the 
frowns  of  power  or  the  allurements  of  patronage,  maintain  a  steadfast  front 
against  the  corruption,  insolence,  and  tyranny  which  are  always  incident  to 
war.  A  distinguished  Southern  statesman,  James  Guthrie,  of  Kentucky,, 
said  to  the  writer  in  1865  :  "  The  Revolution  has  left  deep  scars  on  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  states.  But  as  they  were  made  on 
the  road  to  restoration  and  peace,  we  begin  the  race  of  progress  with  re 
newed  confidence  in  freedom  and  justice."  The  apology  for  many  a  political 
and  social  scar  must  be  left  to  the  evils  and  necessities  of  the  time  when 
the  cicatrice  was  formed.  But  can  this  justify  a  representative  of  the  people 
in  remaining  an  indifferent  spectator  while  the  wounds  are  being  inflicted  ? 
When  war  can  be  justified,  does  the  freebooter  or  guerrilla  escape  demerit 


EFFORTS  FOR  RECONCILIATION. 


29 


because  he  plies  his  vocation  under  the  pretense  of  its  hostilities?  The 
duty  of  a  patriot  before  a  wai^  and  a  fortiori  during  its  continuance,  is  to 
proclaim  every  attendant  peril  to  freedom.  In  a  war  like  ours  for  the  sus- 
tentation  of  a  Federal  Union,  it  was  a  duty  to  announce  and  denounce  every 
effort  in  aid  of  disunion,  whether  it  came  from  foe  or  friend. 

What  to  superficial  observers  appears  to  be  unpatriotic  opposition,  is  not 
seldom  patriotic  antagonism  to  arbitrariness  in  the  proceedings  with  which 
war  is  accompanied.  Such  an  opposition  is  dictated  by  regard  for  the  very 
object  for  which  the  war  is  prosecuted.  The  clangor  of  arms  is  said  to 
silence  the  law.  This  aphorism  may  be  true  of  monarchical  rule,  but  it 
ought  to  have  no  application  in  republican  governments.  It  is  one  of  the 
merits  of  the  Democratic  party,  that  while  broken  in  pieces  and  stifled  in 
expression,  its  members  never  failed  to  lift  their  voice  for  personal  and  public 
liberty,  above  the  alarms  of  war. 

How  often  was  the  star  of  Liberty  eclipsed  during  the  progress  of  our 
Civil  War  !  Not  merely  by  the  suspension  of  the  habeas  corpus  in  places 
where  war  was  not  flagrant ;  not  merely  by  wrongful  arrests  and  imprison 
ment  of  citizens  who  were  innocent ;  not  merely  by  silencing  the  Constitu 
tion  in  various  ways,  and  restrictions  on  civil  rights  ;  but  by  a  thousand  small 
modes  in  the  procedure  of  legislative  bodies,  the  movements  of  cabinets, 
the  deposition  of  chiefs,  and  even  in  the  disposition  of  armies. 

It  is  our  humiliation  that  a  period  of  more  than  twenty  years  has  elapsed 
since  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  and  yet  freedom  is  not  fully  restored  to 
every  citizen,  nor  full  rehabilitation  given  to  those  who  acquiesced  in  the  gov 
ernment.  Even  the  "test  oaths,  "that  odium  of  history,  were  not  fully  re 
pealed  until  the  first  session  of  the  last  Congress.  Then,  the  author's  bill, 
which  had  been  pending  for  many  years,  became  a  law.  This  partial  am 
nesty  came  in  the  form  of  a  repeal  of  the  test  law.  It  was  that  law  which 
absurdly  compelled  the  Representative,  who  was  innocent  of  rebellion,  to 
take  an  oath  that  he  was  not  engaged  in  the  Rebellion  ;  while  the  Repre 
sentative  who  was  so  engaged  simply  took  the  oath  to  support  the  Con 
stitution. 

During  the  late  war,  while  others  were  skeptical  in  respect  of  the  use  of 
men  and  means  for  coercion  ;  while  statesmen  like  Judge  Douglas  were  pre 
pared  to  welcome  temporary  disunion,  or  its  relative,  a  Customs-Zolverein  or 
economic  fraternity  of  states,  the  writer  believed  that  the  proper  use  of 
means  and  men  would  ultimately  bring  peace  with  union.  But  he  also  held 
that  no  peace  would  be  permanent  unless  it  were  wedded  to  the  Union  in 
contentment.  For  this  reason  he  made  several  efforts  to  bring  together 
eminent  men  of  both  sections  who  had  the  confidence  of  the  people,  with  a 
view  to  stop  the  shedding  of  blood  and  to  foster  reconciliation.  In  these 
attempts  he  maintained  no  uncertain  attitude  in  regard  to  the  Union.  His 
conduct  was  not  seldom  challenged  ;  but  in  1862,  in  a  gerrymandered  district 


30  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  Ohio,  with  five  thousand  adverse  majority,  and  on  questions  connected 
with  peace  and  union,  he  was  re-elected  to  Congress  in  spite  of  threats  and 
violence.  After  the  war  had  ended  and  new  associations  gave  him  a  pause 
for  calm  reflection,  all  his  passions  and  interests  became  subordinated  to  a 
clear  mental  vision.  Whatever  of  acrimony  may  have  remained  from  the 
heat  of  discussion  gave  place  to  charity.  He  had  time  to  observe  the  after 
math  of  the  conflict,  and  to  garner  the  second  crop  of  trials  which  resulted 
from  the  prostration  and  upbuilding  of  the  devastated  states. 

The  main  part  of  these  memorabilia  has  to  do  with  the  reconstruction  of 
the  discordant  elements  in  the  Southern  States  subsequent  to  the  war.  There 
could  be  no  reconstruction  of  the  states  themselves,  for  the  states  were  in 
destructible.  They  had  the  celestial  ichor  of  the  Immortals,  and  could  not, 
except  by  annihilation,  die.  In  that  part  of  this  work  the  author  discusses 
the  military  powers  and  the  civil  functions  of  the  Federal  Government. 
His  pen  follows  the  Ku-Klux  into  his  lodge,  and  the  freedman  into  his 
bureau.  It  lifts  the  veil  from  President  Lincoln's  plan  for  a  peace  adminis 
tration,  and  President  Johnson's  vetoes.  It  opens  to  observation  the  clumsy, 
vindictive,  and  relentless  doctrines  and  practices  of  partisan  reconstruction. 

The  author  believes  with  Montesquieu,  that  in  devising  measures  for  the 
elevation  of  down-trodden  peoples  and  states  after  civil  conflict,  it  is  advis 
able  to  exceed  in  lenity  rather  than  severity  ;  to  banish  but  few  rather  than 
many  ;  and  to  leave  the  defeated  their  estates  instead  of  making  a  vast  num 
ber  of  confiscations  ;  for,  as  the  French  publicist  said  :  "  Under  the  pretense 
of  avenging  the  Republic's  cause,  the  avengers  would  establish  tyranny.'* 
The  author  ever  held  that  the  Federal  duty  was  not  to  ' '  destroy  the  rebel  but 
the  rebellion  ;  that  the  disposition  should  be  to  return  as  quickly  as  possible 
into  the  usual  track  of  government  in  which  every  one  is  protected  by  the 
laws  and  no  one  injured."  Accepting  this  wise  doctrine,  he  would  make 
it  the  touchstone  of  the  Johnsonian  policy,  of  the  Thaddeus  Stevens  theory 
drawn  from  Vattel,  and  of  the  reconstructions  attempted  by  provisional 
governors  in  the  temporary  municipal  organizations  of  various  Southern 
states.  While  not  depreciating  the  difficulties  of  reconstruction,  there  is 
reason  now  to  believe  that  many  years  of  bitter  strife  might  have  been 
avoided,  had  there  been  less  toleration  or  encouragement  given  to  spoliation 
by  adventurers  in  the  South,  less  obnoxious  military  intrusion  under  the 
Federal  Government,  and  a  more  liberal  operation  given  to  this  doctrine  of 
amnesty  and  reconciliation.  It  was  by  military  tyranny,  by  social  ostracism, 
by  civil  arrogance,  by  all  the  machinery  known  to  cunning  and  vengeful 
spirits,  that  the  representation  of  the  South  in  Congress  was  hindered  and 
delayed,  and  the  inducements  to  orderly  government  under  new  conditions 
of  suffrage  were  postponed.  These  modes  of  reconstruction  can  now  be  dis 
cussed  without  prejudice  to  justice  or  truth. 

Twenty  years  have  passed  away  since  the  conclusion  of  the  stupendous 


THE  WAR-CLOUD.  ^ 

War-struggle  in  our  country.     Effigies  of  the  soldiers  of  that  war  are  reaivd 
all  over  our  land.     They  adorn  the  avenues  of  the  Federal  Capital.     Every 
year,  with  the  coming  of  the  flowers  of  spring  arises  the  grateful  fragrance 
of  American  hearts  toward  those  who  fell  in  battle  for  and  against  our  Fed 
eral  system  and  social  order.     The  popular  heart,  North  and  South,  has  for 
two  decades  d\velt  proudly  upon  the  deeds  of  the  war.     But  it  is  no  new 
thought,  it  is  a  saying  as  old  as  Roman  civilization,  that  the  trophies  of  war 
do  not  survive  forever.     Charles  Sumner  recognized  the  eloquence  and  phil 
osophy  of  that  legend  when  he  appealed  to  the  Senate  to  erase  from  our 
battle-flags  the  names  of  fratricidal  battle-fields.     It  is  an  old  adage  which 
came  from  the  same  seat  of  authority  and  wisdom  —  ancient  Rome  —  that 
amid  civil  tumults  the  state  should  build  a  bridge  of  gold  for  the  return  of 
its  insurgent  enemy.     This  adage  proceeds  from  the  self-evident  truth  that 
there    is  nothing   so  disastrous  to  society  as  belligerent  dissensions    in  the 
state.     Yet  how  prone  is  mankind  to  glorify  the  soldier,  to  elevate  the  de 
fender  of  its  hearths  and  liberties  above  the  champion  of  liberty  in  the  forum. 
Is  it  true  that  all  the  solid  elements  of  courage  and  virtue  glitter  in  the  crown 
of  martial  success?     If  this  be  true,  then  the  Napoleons  would  outshine  the 
Washingtons  ;  the  Caesars  would  create  events  rather  than  events  create  the 
Caesars.     While  not  depreciating  the  services  of  such  great  captains  of  our 
war  as  Grant,  Sherman,  McClellan,  Sheridan,   Meade,  Hooker,  Thomas, 
McPherson,  Farragut,  Dupont,  or  Porter,  it  must  be  remembered  that  there 
are  other  names  which  shine  in  our  country's  annals,  upon  the  martial  roll  of 
the  Confederate  armies.     These  names  are  yet  upon  every  Southern  lip  :  Lee, 
Albert  Sidney  Johnston,  Joseph  E.  Johnston,  Jackson,  Hood,  Longstreet, 
Gordon,  and  many  others.      But  there  is  still  another  historic  roll,  upon 
which  the  names  of  statesmen  are  found  who  lifted  their  stricken  communi 
ties  out  of  the  ashes  of  defeat  and  despair.      Wade  Hampton  in  South  Caro 
lina,  George  S.  Houston  in  Alabama,  Augustus  H.   Garland  in  Arkansas, 
Andrew  Johnson  in  Tennessee,  William  L.  Sharkey  in  Mississippi,  are  types 
of  the  men  who  gave  their  states  a  new  growth  and  a  blessed  fruitage.     To 
such  men  honors  more  enduring  than  blood-stained  laurels  must  be  awarded. 
The  author  of  this  volume  recognized  the  Roman  lesson  when,  on  the  sixth 
day  of  January,  1861,  as  a  member  from  Ohio,  he  denounced  secession  and 
pleaded  for  compromise.     He  then  warned  both  North  and  South  of  the  con 
sequences  of  war.     He  made  an  appeal  for  nationality  while  predicting  the 
social  chaos  which  would  follow  in  the  wake  of  conflict.     At  that  time  four 
states  only  had  seceded  from  the  Federal  Union.    The  rest  were  threatening  to 
follow.     It  was  in  such  a  peril  that  the  heart  spontaneously  prayed  for  nearer 
communication  with  the  Divine  prescience.     Prosperity  had  made  us  proud, 
rich,  intolerant,  and  self-sufficient.    We  were,  therefore,  prone  to  be  rebellious. 
We  were  doing  well  —  tempestuously  well.     Our  population  was  increasing 
at  a  wonderful  rate.     The  exchanges  of  the  world  were  being  drawn  upon 


32  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

our  great  metropolis.  We  were  then  called  upon  to  break  down  and  thrust 
aside  the  very  means  of  our  ascent,  the  Constitution  itself  !  We  were  called 
upon  to  do  this  by  zealots  of  the  North  and  of  the  South.  Time  has  passed 
since  then.  The  exasperations  of  public  sentiment  are  almost  forgotten. 
But  neither  at  that  time,  nor  since,  could  the  author  speak  of  the  South  in 
the  tone  and  temper  of  many  of  that  day.  Even  that  irascible  and  froward 
state,  South  Carolina,  had  been  a  part  of  our  national  life.  Her  blood  was 
in  our  veins  ;  her  Marion,  Sumpter,  and  Pinckney  were  ours  ;  so  were  Eutaw, 
Cowpens,  and  Camden.  These  names  and  fields  of  fame  could  not  be  sepa 
rated  from  the  Union  any  more  than  the  dawn  from  the  sun.  If  reason 
should  fail,  Georgia,  Texas,  and  Louisiana  would  assuredly  follow  the  erratic 
course  of  South  Carolina.  The  waves  of  the  Gulf  were  making  accordant 
music  in  the  revolutionary  anthem  ;  and  as  the  dashings  of  their  surges  were 
but  the  echoes  of  the  excesses  of  the  North,  there  was  cause  to  fear  the  worst 
in  the  work  of  disintegration.  Yet  many  were  loath  to  believe  that  war 
would  come.  They  trusted  in  a  certain  inventive  faculty  which  had  never 
failed  us  either  in  mechanical  or  political  expedients.  They  thought  our 
politics  were  plastic  to  every  emergency.  The  writer  discussed  at  that  time 
several  peace  propositions,  the  leading  one  of  which  was  to  impress  upon 
the  Southern  people  the  idea  that  secession,  in  theory  or  practice,  was  incon 
sistent  with  good  government ;  that  it  would  be  a  standing  pretext  for  revolu 
tion.  Every  effort  of  conciliation  should,  therefore,  be  exhausted  to  check  it 
before  resorting  to  force.  He  held  that  the  North  should  do  her  part  fully  in 
recession  from  unconstitutional  aggression,  so  as  to  unite  the  Northern  people 
with  the  conservative  portion  of  the  Southern  people  in  repressing  secession. 
He  held  that  if  the  South  should  make  a  patient  endeavor,  equal  to  the  great 
occasion,  to  secure  her  rights  in  the  Union,  she  would  succeed  ;  but  if  she 
went  on  inconsiderately  the  country  would  have  to  incur  the  fearful  hazard  of 
war.  He  believed  that  if  the  South  should  press  the  one  hard,  overmastering 
question  upon  the  North,  and  follow  it  with  a  seizure  of  forts  and  revenue, 
by  cannonading  our  vessels,  and  other  aggressive  acts,  without  giving  an  op 
portunity  for  conciliation,  there  would  be  no  power  in  the  conservatism  of 
the  North  to  restrain  the  people, —  and  no  sacrifice  would  be  considered  too 
great  an  offering  for  the  defense  of  the  Union.  The  consequences  of  a  disso 
lution  were  not  then  exaggerated.  In  vain  might  come  the  solace  that  it  was 
not  like  the  breaking  up  of  society  ;  in  vain,  the  hope  that  it  was  not  anarchy 
—  that  the  link  might  fall  from  the  chain  and  still  be  perfect,  though  the 
chain  had  lost  its  link  and  its  strength.  The  experiment  revealed  the  fallacy 
of  such  solaces  and  hopes.  The  prophecy  of  the  author  as  to  the  impending 
evils  at  that  time  —  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1861  — was  more  than  ful 
filled.  He  then  said  : 

"  In  the  uniformity  of  commercial  regulations,   in  matters  of  war  and 
peace,  postal  arrangements,  foreign  relations,  coinage,  copyrights,  tariff,  and 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  DISUNION.  33 

other  Federal  and  national  affairs,  this  great  government  may  be  broken  ;  but 
in  most  of  the  essential  liberties  and  rights  which  government  is  the  agent  to 
establish  and  protect,  the  seceding  state  has  no  revolution,  and  the  remaining 
states  can  have  none.  This  arises  from  that  refinement  of  our  polity  which 
makes  the  states  the  basis  of  our  instituted  order.  Greece  was  broken  by 
the  Persian  power  ;  but  her  municipal  institutions  remained.  Hungary  has 
lost  her  national  crown  ;  but  her  home  institutions  remain.  But  were  these 
curtailments  of  nationality  voluntary  ?  South  Carolina  may  preserve  her  con 
stituted  domestic  authority  ;  but  she  must  be  content  to  glimmer  obscurely 
remote,  rather  than  shine  and  revolve  in  a  constellated  band.  She  even  goes 
out  by  the  ordinance  of  a  so-called  sovereign  convention,  content  to  lose,  by 
her  isolation,  that  youthful,  vehement,  exultant,  progressive  life,  which  is  our 
NATIONALITY  !  She  foregoes  the  hopes,  the  boasts,  the  flags,  the  music,  all 
the  emotions,  all  the  traits,  and  all  the  energies,  which,  when  combined  in 
our  United  States,  have  won  our  victories  in  war  and  our  miracles  of  national 
advancement.  Her  Governor,  Colonel  Pickens,  in  his  inaugural,  regretfully 
*  looks  back  upon  the  inheritance  South  Carolina  had  in  the  common  glories 
and  triumphant  power  of  this  wonderful  Confederacy,'  and  he  fails  '  to  find 
language  to  express  the  feelings  of  the  human  heart '  as  he  turns  from  the 
contemplation.  The  ties  of  brotherhood,  interests,  lineage,  and  history  are 
all  to  be  severed.  No  longer  are  we  to  salute  a  South  Carolinian  with  the 
eadem  sententia  de  republica  which  makes  unity  and  nationality.  What 
a  prestige  and  glory  are  here  dimmed  and  lost  in  the  contaminated  reason 
of  man ! 

"  Can  we  realize  it?  Is  it  a  masquerade,  to  last  for  a  night,  or  a  reality  to 
be  managed  with  rough,  passionate  handling?  It  is  sad  and  bad  enough; 
but  let  us  not  overtax  our  anxieties  about  it  as  yet.  It  is  not  the  sanguinary 
regimen  of  the  French  revolution  ;  not  the  rule  of  assignats  and  guillotine  ; 
not  the  cry  of  '  Vivent  les  Rouges  !  A  mort  les  gendarmes  !  '  but  as  yet, 
I  hope  I  may  say,  the  peaceful  attempt  to  withdraw  from  the  burdens  and 
benefits  of  the  Republic.  Thus  it  is  unlike  every  other  revolution.  Still  it 
is  revolution.  It  may,  according  as  it  is  managed,  involve  consequences  more 
terrific  than  any  revolution  since  government  began. 

"  I  would,  therefore,  guard  against  the  least  recognition  of  this  right  of 
secession,  or  of  nullification,  which  is  the  lesser  type  of  the  same  disease. 
It  would,  I  say,  destroy  all  government.  It  would  dissolve  the  united  mass 
of  powers  now  deposited  in  the  Union  into  thirty-three  separate  and  conflict 
ing  states ;  each  with  a  flag,  a  tariff,  an  army,  a  foreign  policy,  a  diversity 
of  interests,  and  an  idiosyncrasy  of  ideas.  Nay,  that  would  be  tolerable ; 
but  it  would  do  more  and  worse.  It  would  disintegrate  states,  counties, 
towns ;  tear  cities  from  their  places  on  the  map  ;  disorder  finances,  taxes, 
revenue,  tariffs ;  and  convert  this  fabric,  now  so  fair  and  firm  that  it  seems 
buttt  on  the  earth's  base,  and  pillared  with  the  firmament,  into  a  play-house 


34  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  cards,  built  on  a  base  of  stubble.  It  would  thus  destroy  the  established 
order.  And  is  such  order  nothing  among  men  having  views  of  permanency  ? 
The  North  has  rights,  property,  interests,  relations  in  the  South,  not  to  be 
sundered  without  loss ;  and  the  South  in  the  North,  vice  versa.  Is  this 
nothing  ?  Is  depreciation  of  property,  depression  of  business,  loss  and  lack 
of  employment,  withdrawal  of  capital,  derangement  of  currency,  increase 
of  taxes,  miscarriage  of  public  works  and  enterprise,  destruction  of  state 
credit,  the  loss  of  that  national  symmetry,  geography,  strength,  name,  honor, 
unity  and  glory,  which  publicists  tell  us  are  themselves  the  creators  and 
guardians  of  cash,  credit,  and  commerce  —  are  these  consequences  nothing? 
Surely  such  a  mass  of  complicated  interests  —  the  growth  of  years,  clinging, 
with  root  and  fibre,  to  the  eternal  rocks  of  public  stability  —  cannot  be  up- 
torn  without  great  struggle  and  stupendous  crime. 

"  I  wish  that  I  could  contemplate  secession  as  a  peaceful  remedy.  But  I 
cannot.  It  must  be  a  forcible  disruption.  The  government  is  framed  so 
compactly  in  all  its  parts,  that  to  tear  away  one  part,  you  must  tear  the 
whole  fabric  asunder.  It  cannot  be  done  by  consent.  There  is  no  authority 
to  give  consent.  The  Constitution  looks  to  no  catastrophe  of  the  kind.  It  is 
a  voluntary,  violent,  and  ex  parte  proceeding.  A  majority  of  the  states,  and 
a  great  majority  of  the  people,  are  hostile  to  it.  In  this  angry  and  warlike 
disruption  of  the  compact,  where  shall  we  find  our  '  more  perfect  Union,'  the 
establishment  of  justice,  domestic  tranquillity,  provision  for  the  common  de 
fense,  the  promotion  of  the  general  welfare,  and  the  security  of  the  blessings 
of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  posterity  ?  " 

To  avert  such  a  terrible  catastrophe,  which  has  its  only  analogy  in  the  agi 
tations  of  our  earth  when  shaken  by  the  hand  of  God,  almost  any  use  of 
power  would  seem  to  be  defensible.  But  the  wisdom  of  civism  teaches  that 
in  dealing  with  a  delicate  public  sentiment,  educated  upon  certain  lines  of 
thought  for  many  years,  great  strength  should  not  be  rudely  exercised.  '  If  the 
iron  hand  be  necessary  it  should  be  gloved  in  velvet.  Firmness  should  be 
allied  with  kindness.  Power  should  assert  its  own  prerogative,  but  in  the 
name  of  law  and  love.  Had  these  elements  of  reconciliation  inspired  the 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  and  been  blended  in  the  policies  of  recon 
struction  after  the  war,  as  President  Lincoln  proposed  and  Andrew  Johnson 
endeavored,  our  government  would  not  so  long  have  been  the  prey  to  those 
who  honeycombed  its  prosperity  and  demoralized  its  administration.  And 
there  would  not  have  been  the  same  great  necessity  for  the  popular  uprising 
in  1876,  which  gave  to  the  Democracy  its  suffrage  —  a  suffrage  expressly 
given  to  that  party  in  behalf  of  reform  and  principle,  although  the  power  to 
execute  the  trust  was  diverted  and  ravished  from  it  by  fraud  and  force.  Nor 
would  there  have  been  the  same  controlling  necessity  for  the  contest  of  ten 
millions  of  men  at  the  ballot-box  in  the  year  1884,  in  order  to  vindicate  pop 
ular  sovereignty  as  illustrated  in  the  refined  system  of  polity  by  which  fifty- 
five  millions  of  people  are  held  together  in  common  nationality. 


CHAPTER  II. 


PARTY  CREEDS  AND  MODES  —  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONSTRUCTION  — NEW  ENGLAND 
SLAVE  TRADE  — THE  COTTON  GIN  AND  THE  MULE-JENNY  —  COTTON  AND 
SLAVERY  —  SOUTHERN  ANTI-SLAVERY  —  FIRST  FREE  SOIL  VOTE  —  SLAVERY 
IN  THE  TERRITORIES  -THE  LOUISIANA  AND  FLORIDA  PURCHASES  -  THE  MIS 
SOURI  QUESTION  — THE  ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS  — THE  KANSAS  STRUGGLE 
—  THE  WHIG  PARTY  DISBANDS  —  RISE  OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY  —  THE 
ABOLITIONISTS  -  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN. 

THE  distinguishing  feature  between  the  great  political  parties  of  this 
country  is  their  different  modes  of  construing  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.     A  loose  construction  of  law  tends  to  loose  govern 
ment.     Loose  government  leads  to  loose  morals.     On  the  other  hand, 
strict  construction  is  a  constant  security  against  excessive,  tyrannical,  and  dis 
honest  policies  and  conduct.     So  nearly  are  these  parties  divided,  that  at  the 
recent  vote  for  the  electoral  ticket,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  10,036,057 
votes,  4,842,292  were  given  for  one  party,  and  4,810,219  for  the  other.     The 
votes  given  outside  of  these  two  parties,  including  scattering  and  defective 
votes,  did  not  amount  to  400,000, —  or,  to  be  more  exact,  385,808. 

If  one  should  fix  the  dividing  line  between  our  people  in  the  matter  of 
politics,  it  must  be  drawn  between  the  Democratic  party  and  the  Republican 
party.  The  issues  upon  which  these  parties  divide  in  the  most  conspicuous 
manner  turn  upon  the  hinges  of  constitutional  construction.  The  latter  party 
construes  the  Constitution  upon  latitudinarian  theories,  by  lax  methods.  It 
finds  its  highest  sanction  for  these  theories  in  the  Preamble  of  that  instru 
ment,  which  says : 

"  WE,  THE  PEOPLE  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
Union,  establish  Justice,  insure  domestic  Tranquillity,  provide  for  the  com 
mon  Defense,  promote  the  general  Welfare,  and  secure  the  Blessings  of 
Liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  Posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  CONSTITU 
TION  for  the  United  States  of  America  "  ;  and  a  further  sanction  in  that  part 
of  Article  I.,  Section  8,  Clause  i,  which  says  that:  "The  Congress  shall 
have  Power  To  .  .  .  provide  for  the  common  Defense  and  general  Wei- 


3  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

fare  of  the  United  States."  The  Democratic  party  regards  these  general  words 
as  being  limited  by  the  expressly  enumerated  grants  of  power  to  Congress, 
which  point  out  the  modes  by  which  the  object  of  the  Constitution  shall  be 
secured.  It  holds,  for  example,  that  the  ''common  Defense  and  general 
Welfare  of  the  United  States  "  are  best  secured  by  confining  Congress  to  the 
exercise  of  the  powers  expressly  granted ;  and  that  there  is  no  discretion  to 
enlarge  these  powers.  It  holds  that  the  implied  powers  of  Congress  can  be 
drawn  alone  from  the  express  powers,  and  not  from  the  general  words  of  the 
Preamble.  Some  of  the  latter  —  those  last  above  quoted  —  are  found  in  the 
first  clause  of  the  eighth  section  of  the  Constitution.  Any  other  mode  of 
construction  must  leave  Congress  at  liberty  to  enact  any  law  at  its  discretion, 
on  a  plausible  pretext  for  promoting  the  welfare  of  the  people.  The  journals 
of  Congress  in  the  past  three  decades  are  full  of  the  records  of  attempts  at 
such  latitudinarian  legislation.  These  attempts,  the  Democratic  party  has 
invariably  opposed.  It  has  opposed  them  as  being  unconstitutional.  They 
are  subversive  of  the  structure  and  genius  of  our  government.  It  holds  that 
the  tendency  of  such  legislation  is  to  divest  the  people  of  the  power  over  their 
own  domestic  affairs.  Such  power  all  free  people  should  retain  in  their  own 
hands. 

To  show  to  the  unprejudiced  reader  of  the  Constitution  the  evil  results  of 
loose  construction,  it  is  only  necessary  to  remind  him  that  in  the  year  1860 
the  Republican  party  held  that  justice  was  overthrown  and  domestic  tran 
quillity  destroyed  by  the  existence  of  slavery ;  that  slavery  was  a  perpetual 
menace  to  the  general  welfare  ;  and  that  the  strife  in  regard  to  slavery  had 
its  origin  in  the  action  of  an  aristocratic  governing  class  founded  upon  that 
institution.  This  was  the  view  of  its  best  writer  upon  the  "war  powers"  of 
the  government  — the  Hon.  William  Whiting,  of  Boston.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  early  in  the  century  slavery  became  irreconcilable,  if  not  with  republican 
institutions,  at  least  with  the  sentiment  of  the  North.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
its  championship  during  the  late  war  became  the  chief  obstacle  to  the  restora 
tion  of  Federal  relations.  But  whether  slave-holding  communities  were  a 
privileged  class  or  not,  depended  not  upon  the  Preamble  but  upon  the  extent 
of  the  granted  powers  of  the  Constitution.  If  the  extent  of  these  powers 
depended  upon  a  construction  of  the  Preamble  in  its  wide  significance,  or 
upon  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  rights  of 
man,  there  would  be  no  doubt  that  the  abolitionists  of  the  North  had  not 
only  constitutional  vindication  but  immense  moral  emphasis  on  their  side. 

There  is  no  one  so  hot  in  his  temper  or  so  extreme  in  his  Southern  pro 
clivities  as  now  to  defend  the  institution  of  slavery  or  yearn  for  its  re-estab 
lishment.  The  progress  of  our  time  has  long  since  forbidden  it,  even  if  our 
war  had  not  riddled  slavery  to  its  death  with  the  bullet,  and  even  if  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  had  not  buried  it  beyond  all 
thought  of  resurrection. 


SLAVERY  IN  THE  COLONIES. 


37 


The  conspicuous  upheaval  of  Europe  in  modern  times,  led  by  France, 
dethroned  slavery  in  1794.  It  was  never  practically  established  by  that 
country  in  any  of  its  colonies.  England,  in  1833,  by  an  act  °f  Parliament 
proclaimed  universal  emancipation.  Sweden  followed  in  1844  ;  Denmark  in 
1847.  Mexico  took  the  lead  of  England  for  emancipation.  When  she  be 
came  independent  she  decreed  emancipation.  Spain  and  Brazil  were  not 
backward  in  pursuing  the  same  course ;  and  the  Czar  of  Russia  in  1862 
emancipated  the  serf. 

It  is  no  defense  of  slavery  to  say  that  it  was  harmless  bondage  two  or  three 
hundred  years  ago,  while  it  was  a  harsh  institution  in  1860.      It  was  no 
better  when  fixed  upon  the  soil  of  North  America  by  England  and  New 
England,  in  our  infancy,  than  when,  by  the  strength  of  the  cotton  interest,  it 
was  aggrandized  beyond  the  anticipation  of  the  founders  of  our  government. 
It  does  not  justify  the  existence  of  the  institution,  to  recur  to  the  history 
of  its  establishment  and  propagation  in  America.    Suppose  it  were  fixed  upon 
the  South  against  the  will  of  her  people,  and  in  despite  of  the  protest  of  her 
leading  statesmen  ;  is  that  any  reason  to  justify  the  shackling  of  many  mil 
lions  of  our  human  kind  ?    Nor  would  it  justify  slavery  that  the  African  slave- 
trade  continued  under  the  protection  of  the  American  flag  and  Constitution. 
Nor  would  it  justify  slavery  to  prove,  by  colonial  and  later  records,  that  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  and  their  descendants  were  inseparably  and  profitably  con 
nected  with  this  trade.     It  may  be  true  that  one  of  the  Pilgrim  vessels,  a 
consort  of  the  Mayflower  in  1620,  landed  the  first  cargo  of  slaves  in  Virginia. 
It  is  no  doubt  true  that  in  1636  a  second  cargo  was  brought  into  the  Ameri 
can  colonies,  in  the  ship  Desire,  of  Marblehead.     True,  it  may  be,  that  this 
cargo  was  landed  at  Salem,  and  that  by  order  of  the  General  Court  of  the 
colony  the  officers  of  that  ship  were  compensated  for  their  service  in  keep 
ing  and   distributing  those  slaves.      It  is  true  that  in  1641   the  Massachu 
setts  General  Court  passed  an  act  authorizing  slavery,  not  only  of  negroes  and 
criminals,  but  of  Indians.      The  commercial  history  of  Massachusetts  fur 
nishes  us  instructions  from  owners    to   commanders  of  slave    ships.      The 
slaves  were  purchased  with  New  England  rum.     The  officers  of  the  ships 
were  paid  in  rum  and  slaves  ;  and  by  a  refinement  of  elegance,  if  any  old  slaves 
were  taken  they  were  "  to  be  close  shaved  and  oiled  before  going  on  shore  to 
approve  their  appearance."      The  Rev.  George  Whitfield,  through  the  in 
strumentality  of  certain  men  of  New  England,  took  slaves  to  Georgia  against 
the  protest  of  Governor  Wirrthrop  and  the  trustees  of  the  colony.     Up  to 
1771,  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  had  at  twenty-three  different  times  passed 
acts  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves  into  that  colony ;  but  through  the 
influence  of  Massachusetts  slave-traders,  the  king  would  not  allow  the  en 
forcement  of  these  acts.     Suppose  these  facts  to  be  historic,  what  do  they  im 
ply?     It  is  well  known  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  draft  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  made  that  action  of  the  king  one  of  the  "  repeated  injuries  and 


38  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

usurpations"  designed  to  reduce  the  colonies  "  under  absolute  despotism." 
It  is  also  known  that  a  special  committee,  of  which  a  Massachusetts  member 
was  chairman,  struck  out  this  protest.  In  1780  Massachusetts  adopted  a 
Constitution  which  contained  the  Jeffersonian  declaration  that  liberty  was  an 
inalienable  right.  A  distinguished  Democrat  of  that  state,  Theodore  Sedg- 
wick,  raised  the  point,  which  after  eight  years  of  litigation  was  sustained  by 
the  court,  that  slavery  was  thereby  abolished. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  recount  the  various  acts  of  the  people  of  this  country 
whereby  they  early  undertook  to  evince  their  hatred  of  slavery.  But  when 
the  raising  of  cotton  became  profitable,  slavery  received  a  new  impulse,  and 
from  that  time  became  more  or  less  aggressive. 

The  year  1770  marks  the  period  when  the  planters  in  the  South  began  to 
turn  their  attention  to  cotton-raising.  The  value  of  negro  slave  labor  was 
not  then  so  much  appreciated  as  in  later  years.  This  fact  will  explain  the 
absence  of  the  word  "  slavery"  from  the  Constitution  when  it  was  originally 
adopted.  It  was  then  expected  that  the  institution  would  soon  die  out.  In 
colonial  times  there  was  an  idea  that  the  upland  cotton  of  America  could  not 
be  profitably  used  in  textile  manufactures.  As  late  as  i7§7>  no  c°tton  was 
exported  from  North  America.  That  year,  Great  Britain  imported  32,800,- 
ooo  pounds  from  the  West  Indies,  the  French,  Dutch,  and  Portuguese 
colonies,  and  the  Turkish  dominions.  In  1792  the  United  States  exported 
only  138,328  pounds.  For  many  years  following,  little  or  no  cotton  was 
consumed  in  our  manufactures.  American  cotton  was  not  as  clean  as  that 
baled  elsewhere.  Labor  could  be  better  employed  than  in  giving  it  the 
necessary  manipulation.  But  in  the  year  1795  Eli  Whitney,  of  Massachu 
setts,  invented  the  cotton-gin.  The  effect  on  cotton  production  was  remark 
able.  In  the  year  1807  we  exported  55,018,449  pounds  of  this  staple.  In 
1831  the  export  was  619,000  bales  to  Great  Britain,  127,000  to  France,  and 
27,000  to  other  countries.  In  1845  our  crop  amounted  to  2,100,537  bales. 
In  the  year  1775  that  ingenious  English  weaver,  Samuel  Crompton,  com 
bined  the  drawing-roller  of  Arkwright  with  the  jenny  of  Hargreave,  and 
produced  that  beautiful,  complex  machine,  to  which  he  gave  the  appropriate 
name  of  the  mule-jenny.  About  the  same  period  the  celebrated  Scotchman, 
Watt,  was  engaged  in  successfully  applying  his  steam-engine  to  the  opera 
tion  of  moving  factory  machinery.  These  three  men — an  Englishman,  a 
Scotchman,  and  an  American,  made  cotton-raising  one  of  the  leading  in 
dustries  of  the  world.  Their  inventions  greatly  benefited  mankind ;  but 
they  also  increased  the  value  of  negro  slaves  to  an  extent  never  thought  of 
by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  With  a  steady  and  ever-advancing 
market  for  American  cotton,  was  it  strange  that  pecuniary  interests  in  the 
South  should  strive  for  the  maintenance  of  slavery?  Is  it  strange  that 
pecuniary  interests  now  demand  concessions  to  the  cotton-factories  of  New 
England,  in  which  the  labor  system  is  as  hard  on  the  operatives  as  ever 


PURITAN  PRACTICES. 


39 


slavery  was  in  the  South  ?  It  is  easy  to  be  a  philanthropist  when  pecun 
iary  interests  are  not  involved.  Yet,  notwithstanding  the  strong  induce 
ments  to  the  spread  of  slavery  in  fields  where  no  other  form  ot  labor  was 
possible,  it  must  be  said  to  the  credit  of  the  American  people,  that  they 
were  among  the  first  opponents  to  the  slave-trade.  The  destruction  of  that 
trade  was  in  great  measure  due  to  their  persistent  efforts.  The  writer  of 
this  volume,  as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  even  during 
the  anxieties  of  the  Civil  War,  took  part  in  assaulting  the  slave-trade  upon 
the  African  coast,  by  international  and  Federal  action.  The  first  debate  he 
•ever  had  in  Congress  was  with  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  the  celebrated  Abol 
itionist  of  Ohio,  who  contended  that  when  the  Democratic  party  came  into 
power  with  Mr.  Buchanan,  it  was  committed  to  the  slave-trade  ;  although  by 
this,  as  he  explained  afterwards,  he  did  not  mean  the  slave-trade  from  Africa, 
but  the  inter-state  slave-trade. 

Slavery  in  the  British-American  colonies  was  not  a  peculiar  institution 
of  the  South.  It  was  introduced  into  all  the  colonies.  It  was  cherished 
and  sustained  by  the  local  laws  of  each  of  them.  It  was  not  repelled  from 
the  cold  North  by  any  sentiment  among  the  people.  It  is  to  climatic  influ 
ences,  rather  than  to  a  love  of  liberty,  that  the  Northern  states  owe  their 
early  riddance  of  the  institution.  Northern  people  are  apt  to  believe  that 
their  ancestors,  like  themselves,  regarded  the  enslaving  a  fellow-being  as  a 
crime  in  the  sight  of  Heaven.  But  their  own  colonial  statutes  furnish  evi 
dence  that  even  the  Puritans  of  New  England  were  not  averse  to  slavery. 
The  "  Forefathers"  had  virtues  which  are  still  celebrated  as  those  of  a  race 
chosen  by  the  Almighty.  They  were  a  peculiar  people, —  and  yet  they  were 
slave-holders.  They  had  their  "slave-codes."  Their  codes  might  have 
served  as  models  for  the  ultra  slave-holding  southwestern  communities  of 
thirty  years  ago.  Colonial  New- York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania  were 
little,  if  any,  more  troubled  than  their  New  England  neighbors  in  respect  to 
the  morality  of  the  "  institution."  The  slave-codes  of  the  colonies  are  evi 
dence  that  the  great  mass  of  the  people  sustained  slavery.  In  New  Eng 
land,  in  the  days  when  slavery  was  sanctioned  by  rigid  laws,  no  one  was 
allowed  to  vote  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  established  Puritan,  or  Con 
gregational  church.  And  in  the  oth^r  Northern  states  the  right  of  suffrage 
was  far  from  being  universal. 

In  those  good  old  days  it  was  the  "  saints  "  and  the  better  sort  of  people 
—  the  elect  and  the  electors  —  and  not  the  sinners  and  base  fellows,  who 
practiced  slave-holding  and  prescribed  slave-codes.  Then,  Rum  and  Reli 
gion  formed  a  sweeter  euphony  than  in  days  more  recent  and  eventful. 

Mr.  William  Goodell,  a  high  anti-slavery  authority,  in  his  work  entitled 
Slavery  and  Anti- Slavery,  says  of  the  introduction  of  slaves  : 

"  The  colonies  now  known  as  the  Southern  or  Slave  States,  on  the  At 
lantic  Coast,  received  the  principal  share  of  these  importations.  The  mid- 


40  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

die  and  eastern  colonies  received  comparatively  few,  and  these  chiefly  for 
domestic  sen-ants  in  the  cities,  and  in  the  families  of  professional  gentlemen 
in  the  interior.  As  the  soil  was  not  adapted  to  slave  culture,  and  was 
owned  in  small  farms  by  a  hardy  race  of  agriculturists,  inured  to  habits  of 
labor,  the  process  of  cultivation  by  slaves  never  obtained,  particularly  in 
New  England,  except  to  a  very  limited  extent.  In  New- York,  first  settled 
by  the  Dutch,  in  New  Jersey,  and  perhaps  in  some  portions  of  Pennsylva 
nia,  the  labor  of  slaves  was  introduced  to  a  greater  extent  than  further  east. 
But  in  the  importation  of  slaves  for  the  Southern  colonies,  the  merchants  of 
the  New  England  sea-ports  competed  with  those  of  New-York  and  the 
South.  They  appear,  indeed,  to  have  outstripped  them,  and  to  have 
almost  monopolized,  at  one  time,  the  immense  profits  of  that  lucrative  but 
detestable  trade.  Boston,  Salem,  and  Newburyport  in  Massachusetts,  and 
Newport  and  Bristol  in  Rhode  Island,  amassed  in  the  persons  of  a  few 
of  their  citizens,  vast  sums  of  this  rapidly  acquired  and  ill-gotten  wealth, 
which,  in  many  instances,  quite  as  rapidly,  and  very  remarkably,  took  to 
itself  wings  and  flew  away.  In  some  cases,  however,  it  remained,  and  formed 
the  basis  of  the  capital  of  some  prominent  mercantile  houses,  almost  or 
quite  down  to  the  present  time.  Citizens,  honored  with  high  posts  of  office 
in  the  state  and  Federal  governments,  have  owed  their  rank  in  society,  and 
their  political  elevation,  to  the  wealth  thus  acquired  ;  sometimes  thus  ac 
quired  by  themselves  since  the  colonies  became  states,  and  while  the  traffic 
was  tolerated,  as  it  was,  till  the  year  1808." 

Such  is  the  frank  statement  of  honest  William  Goodell,  the  radical  aboli 
tionist  and  historian.  Slavery  in  early  New  England  was  of  a  mild  type. 
It  was  confined  chiefly  to  the  domestic  sen  ice.  Yet  not  even  in  Connecticut 
was  there  any  recognition  of  the  legality  and  validity  of  a  slave's  marriage. 
From  the  same  source  we  derive  still  more  discreditable  illustration.  A 
pastor  was  the  owner  of  a  male  and  a  female  slave.  He  had  admitted  them 
both  to  the  communion  of  his  Congregational  church.  He  had  officially 
pronounced  them  husband  and  wife.  Afterwards  he  separated  them  forever 
by  the  sale  of  the  wife  to  a  distant  purchaser,  in  spite  of  the  entreaties  of 
both  wife  and  husband.  Was  there  no  court  of  law,  no  church,  no  ecclesi 
astical  body  to  interpose  or  even  censure  ?  None  whatever.  In  "  Massachu 
setts,"  Mr.  Goodell  says,  "another  Congregational  pastor,  of  high  reputa 
tion,  is  said  to  have  reared  up  a  female  slave  in  his  family  in  a  state  of  almost 
absolute  heathenism,  and  never  attempted  to  teach  her  the  alphabet."  Mr. 
Goodell  states  that  during  the  colonial  period,  and  long  after  independence 
was  declared,  "a  large  portion  of  the  ministers  of  religion  in  New  England 
were  among  the  slave-holding  class  of  the  community"  ;  and  that  "  many  of 
the  present  ministers  of  New  England  are  the  sons,  and  most  of  them  the 
successors,  of  slave-holding  ministers." 

So  late  as  1831,  Mr.  Arthur  Tappan,  the  Rev.  Simeon  S.  Jocelyn,  and 
other  Connecticut  gentlemen  proposed  to  establish  a  school  in  New  Haven 


VIEWS  OF  THE  EARLY  STATESMEN. 


41 


for  the  education  of  colored  people  ;  but  so  violent  was  the  opposition  that 
they  were  forced  to  abandon  the  enterprise.  In  1833,  Miss  Prudence  Cran- 
dall  was  prosecuted  and  imprisoned  for  teaching  a  school  of  colored  children 
at  Canterbury,  in  the  same  state. 

Such  historical  facts  should  have  been  kept  in  view  while  the  anti-slavery 
controversy  was  in  progress.  If  Northern  philanthropists  and  public  men 
had  freely  admitted  them,  their  arguments  would  have  had  far  more  weight 
with  Southern  men.  With  such  an  ancestry  and  history,  the  people  of  New 
England  could  ill  afford  to  assume  the  attitude  of  the  Pharisee,  and  say  to 
the  South,  "  I  am  holier  than  thou." 

But  slavery  gradually  disappeared  in  New  England.  It  vanished  from 
all  the  states  north  of  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line.  The  anti-slavery  sentiment 
which  was  early  developed  grew  apace,  as  the  evil  receded  before  climatic 
causes.  The  growth  of  intelligence  gave  strength  to  the  spirit  of  liberty. 
After  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  gave  new  force  to  the  judgment 
of  history  against  slavery.  When  the  Revolution  of  1776  came  on,  there 
were  few  enlightened  men,  north  or  south,  who  did  not  deplore  the  evils  of 
slavery. 

It  has  been  said  in  a  preceding  page  of  this  chapter  that  the  cultivation 
of  cotton,  which  rapidly  developed  during  the  first  half  of  the  present  cent 
ury,  had  the  effect  of  greatly  enhancing  the  value  of  slave  labor.  There 
was  a  worse  consequence.  Southern  sentiment  changed  in  regard  to  the 
institution.  When  the  chief  staples  peculiar  to  the  South  were  rice  and 
indigo,  the  strong  pro-slavery  sentiment  was  confined  to  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia.  When  cotton,  which  could  be  profitably  cultivated  in  all  the 
states  south  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  became  the  great  staple  of  the  world's 
commerce,  the  area  for  the  employment  of  slaves  became  co-extensive  with 
the  South.  The  progressive  demand  for  cotton  in  Europe  and  America 
more  than  kept  pace  with  its  production.  It  was  thought  desirable  to  ac 
quire  new  territories  adapted  to  its  growth.  Hence  the  Southern  people 
became  sensitive  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Their  interests  made  them  more 
tenacious  of  their  rights,  as  citizens  of  independent  and  co-equal  states. 
They  were  intensely  jealous  of  the  interference  from  abroad  with  their 
domestic  affairs. 

The  preservation  of  slavery  was  not  regarded,  in  the  South,  as  a  matter 
of  vital  importance  during,  or  for  some  time  after,  the  Revolutionary  era. 
This  is  manifest  from  the  positions  taken  with  reference  to  it  by  leading  pub 
lic  men.  Most  Southern  statesmen  regarded  it  as  a  great  evil.  They  lamented 
their  inability  to  remove  it.  This  was  the  attitude  of  all  the  great  Vir 
ginians.  The  list  includes  among  many  others  of  note,  Washington,  Jeffer 
son,  Madison,  Monroe,  Henry,  George  Mason,  Wythe,  and  John  Randolph. 
The  leading  men  of  Maryland  did  not  regard  slavery  with  favor.  James  Ire- 
dell,  of  North  Carolina,  afterwards  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  Dr.  Hugh  Williamson,  and  other  eminent  men  of  that  state 
were  equally  pronounced  against  slavery. 


42  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Under  the  constitution  of  North  Carolina  of  1776,  the  free  people  of 
'Color  were  recognized  as  citizens  and  voters.  The  following  brief  extract 
from  the  journals  of  the  Continental  Congress  shows  what  so  eminent  a 
man  as  Mr.  Jefferson  thought  of  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  ter 
ritories  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  of  the  duty  of  Congress  in 
the  premises  : 

April  19,  1784.  "Congress  took  into  consideration  the  report  of  a 
•committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Jefferson  [of  Virginia],  Mr.  Chase  [of 
Maryland] ,  and  Mr.  Howell  [of  Rhode  Island] ,  to  whom  was  recommitted 
their  report  of  a  plan  for  a  temporary  government  of  the  western  territory  ; 

"  When  a  motion  was  made  by  Mr.  Speight  [of  N.  Carolina],  seconded 
by  Mr.  Read  [of  S.  Carolina],  to  strike  out  the  following  paragraph: 

"  '  That  after  the  year  1800  of  the  Christian  era,  there  shall  be  neither 
slavery  nor  unvoluntary  servitude  in  any  of  the  said  states  [new  states  to  be 
formed],  otherwise  than  in  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall 
have  been  convicted  to  have  been  personally  guilty/ 

"And  on  the  question,  Shall  the  words  moved  to  be  struck  out  stand? 
(in  other  words,  shall  the  motion  be  rejected),  the  yeas  and  nays  being  re 
quired  by  Mr.  Howell,  the  vote  was  : 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE,  Mr.  Foster,  Aye.  ) 

Mr.  Blanchard,  Aye.         5      y6' 


MASSACHUSETTS,    Mr.  Gerry,  Aye. 

ye. 

^Aye. 


Mr.  Partridge,  Aye.  > 


RHODE  ISLAND,      Mr.  Ellery,  Aye. 

Mr.  Howell,  Aye. 

CONNECTICUT,        Mr.  Sherman,  Aye.  ) 

Mr.  Wadsworth,  Aye.  y     y 

NEW- YORK,  Mr.  DeWitt,  Aye.  ) 

Mr.  Paine,  Aye.  )      y 
NEW  JERSEY,         Mr.  Dick,  Aye. 

PENNSYLVANIA,      Mr.  MifHin,  Aye.  } 

Mr.  Montgomery,  Aye.  >Aye. 

Mr.  Hand,  Aye.  } 

MARYLAND,  Mr.  McHenry,  No.  ) 

Mr.  Slone,  No.  y 

VIRGINIA,  Mr.  Jefferson,  Aye.  ^ 

Mr.  Hardy,  No.  >No. 

Mr.  Mercer,  No.  3 

NORTH  CAROLINA,  Mr.  Williamson,  Aye.  >  _ 

•\/r     o     •   u.   XT  C  Divided. 

Mr.  Speight,  No.  > 

SOUTH  CAROLINA,  Mr.  Read,  No.  ) 

Mr.  Beresford,  No.  > 


THE  TERRITORY  WEST  OF  THE  MISSISSIPPI.  43 

"So  the  question  was  lost,  and  the  words  were  struck  out." 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  between  the  thirteen  states  required  the 
assent  of  at  least  seven  to  every  ordinance  or  law.  Measures  of  importance 
required  the  concurrence  of  nine  states.  Each  state  was  entitled  to  one  vote, 
but  might  send  to  the  Congress  from  two  to  seven  members  ;  never  less  than 
two,  nor  more  than  seven.  But  it  was  necessary  for  them,  or  a  majority  of 
them,  to  agree  among  themselves  on  every  question.  Thus  only  could  they 
give  an  effective  vote.  If  equally  divided,  their  votes  counted  for  nothing, 
as  in  the  above  case  in  which  the  two  delegates  from  North  Carolina  voted, 
one  aye,  and  the  other  no.  In  the  case  of  Virginia,  Mr.  Jefferson's  vote 
was  overcome  by  that  of  his  two  colleagues.  As  each  state  was  required  to 
have  at  least  two  delegates,  the  single  vote  of  Mr.  Dick,  of  New  Jersey, 
could  not  be  counted.  Mr.  Chase,  of  Maryland,  seems  not  to  have  been 
present.  The  Articles  fail  to  state  whether  the  making  of  ordinances  for 
the  government  of  the  territories  required  more  than  seven  votes,  but  the 
great  importance  of  the  measure  would  seem  to  place  it  in  the  category  of 
those  requiring  nine  votes.  If  only  seven  were  necessary,  then  the  anti- 
slavery  ordinance  of  Mr.  Jefferson  was  defeated  by  the  accidental  absence  of 
a  member  from  New  Jersey. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  anti-slavery  ordinance  of  the  great 
Virginian  covered  the  whole  Territory  of  the  United  States,  down  to  the 
southern  boundary.  That  boundary  was  then  the  thirty-first  parallel  of  lati 
tude.  It  included  what  was  afterwards  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  and 
Mississippi.  Louisiana  and  Florida  were  then  foreign  territories. 

If  Mr.  Jefferson  had  had  for  colleagues,  Mr.  Madison  and  George  Mason, 
Patrick  Henry,  or  George  Wythe,  the  vote  of  Virginia  would  have  been 
in  favor  of  this  anti-slavery  ordinance.  If  Dr.  Hugh  Williamson  had  had 
for  a  colleague,  James  Iredell,  it  is  probable  that  the  vote  of  North  Carolina 
would  have  been  on  the  same  side.  But  would  a  congressional  ordinance 
for  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  those  southern  territories  have  been 
•effectual?  Hardly.  Still,  the  fact  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  always  a  popular  fa 
vorite  in  the  South,  presented  and  voted  for  the  ordinance,  shows  that  slavery 
was  at  that  day  far  from  being  regarded  as  a  vital  interest  of  the  South. 

The  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  which  embraced  the  whole  of  the  territory 
west  of  the  Mississippi  River, —  except  what  is  now  Texas,  and  that  pur 
chased  or  obtained  from  Mexico, —  cannot  be  charged  to  the  spirit  of  slavery 
propagandism.  The  diplomatic  correspondence  on  the  subject  of  the  pur 
chase  leaves  no  doubt  on  this  point.  Neither  Mr.  Jefferson  nor  any  member 
of  his  Cabinet,  nor  Mr.  Robert  R.  Livingston,  of  New- York,  the  Minister 
to  France,  who  carried  on  the  negotiation,  nor  Mr.  Monroe,  the  special  en 
voy  sent  out  with  the  last  instructions  from  Washington,  had  the  remotest 
idea  of  making  such  a  proposal.  When  Napoleon  made  the  offer  through 
his  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  it  was  not  regarded  with  favor  by  Mr.  Liv- 


44  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ingston,  nor  Mr.  Monroe.  They  greatly  feared  that  if  they  so  far  exceeded 
their  instructions  as  to  enter  into  a  convention  on  that  offer,  their  act  would 
not  be  sustained  by  the  President  and  by  Congress.  It  was  only  when 
Napoleon  made  it  an  ultimatum,  that  they  agreed  to  take  that  vast  territory. 
The  price  paid  was  the  pitiful  sum  of  fifteen  millions  of  dollars.  But  it  is 
a  precious  memento  of  Democratic  sagacity  beyond  computation.  The  in 
structions  were  to  acquire  the  east  bank  of  the  Mississippi  down  to  the  Gulf, 
and  as  much  of  Florida  as  was  practicable.  Florida  lay  contiguous  to 
Georgia,  to  the  Alabama  and  Mississippi  Territories,  and  near  to  South  Car 
olina.  The  Florida  Indians,  or  Spanish  and  English  traders  among  them, 
were  likely  to  give  great  annoyance  to  our  southern  frontiers. 

Strange  to  say,  the  value  and  importance  of  the  country  west  of  the  Mis 
sissippi  was  then  greatly  underrated.  It  was  not  until  the  purchase  had  been 
made  that  our  statesmen  began  to  realize  that  an  acquisition  of  incalculable 
value  and  incomparable  destiny  had  been  thrust  upon  them.  If  the  slave- 
holding  interest  had  been  aggressive  then,  as  it  was  thirty  years  later,  Texas 
would  have  been  included  in  the  purchase  ;  but  the  truth  is,  that  to  the  most 
far-seeing  statesmen  of  that  day,  the  time  seemed  indefinitely  remote  when 
the  South  would  need  an  outlet  for  the  slave  population. 

Neither  was  the  acquisition  of  Florida,  sixteen  years  later,  prompted  by 
the  spirit  of  slavery  propagandism.  When  that  took  place,  Mr.  Monroe 
was  President,  but  John  Quincy  Adams  was  Secretary  of  State.  It  was  the 
Massachusetts  statesman  who  negotiated  the  purchase.  The  object  was  to 
extend  our  borders  to  the  Gulf.  The  control  of  a  country  which  had  be 
come  a  source  of  annoyance  would  thus  be  secured.  Slavery  existed  in 
Florida,  under  Spanish  rule.  There  was  no  likelihood  that  Florida  would 
ever  fall  into  hands  unfriendly  to  the  institution  ;  for  England  then,  no  less 
than  France  and  Spain,  had  her  slave-holding  colonies.  If  the  attempt  had 
been  made  to  exclude  slavery  from  Florida  when  the  territory  was  purchased, 
the  storm  of  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  South  would  have  exceeded  that 
which  followed  the  similar  attempt  in  regard  to  Missouri.  But  nothing  of 
the  kind  occurred. 

Strong  opposition  was  made  by  Mr.  Quincy,  of  Massachusetts,  to  the 
admission  of  Louisiana  as  a  state.  He  was  sustained  in  this  course  by  his 
constituents.  He  contended  that  it  was  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  because  there  was  no  provision  for  the  admission  of  states  formed  on 
territories  which  were  not  owned  by  the  Union  when  the  Constitution  was 
framed.  The  predominant  feeling  in  New  England  at  that  time  was  one  of 
opposition  to  Southern  aggrandizement,  rather  than  to  slavery  in  its  moral 
aspects.  New  England  was  violently  opposed  to  the  war  with  Great 
Britain,  and  the  admission  of  Louisiana  would  give  strength  to  the  war 
party  in  the  country.  The  opponents  of  admission  naturally  appealed  to 
the  moral  sentiments  of  the  people  on  the  question  of  slavery,  but  this  oppo- 


THE  FIRST  ANTI-SLAVERY  AGITATION. 


45 


sition  to  slavery  was  by  no  means  the  controlling  motive  in  opposing  the 
admission  of  Louisiana  as  a  state. 

The  first  great  anti-slavery  agitation  arose  in  connection  with  the  meas 
ures  looking  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  state  of  the  Union.  The 
American  emigrants  to  that  country  had  gone  chiefly  from  Virginia,  Ken 
tucky,  and  Tennessee  ;  many  took  with  them  their  slaves.  They  were  pre 
ceded  by  the  French,  who  early  in  the  eighteenth  century  had  made  settle 
ments  at  St.  Louis  and  other  points.  The  French  had  introduced  slavery. 
When  application  was  made  by  the  people  of  the  territory  for  admission 
into  the  Union  as  a  state,  the  constitution  presented  by  them  contained  a 
clause  which  recognized  the  existence  of  the  institution.  The  anti-slavery 
sentiment  of  the  North,  backed  by  the  political  or  sectional  jealously  which 
had  begun  to  be  aroused  by  diversity  of  interests,  was  inflamed.  This  at 
tempt  to  establish  slavery  in  the  vast  region  beyond  the  Mississippi  was  a 
provocation  and  an  incentive.  The  South  became  wildly  intolerant  of  oppo 
sition.  It  became  keenly  alive  to  the  greatness  of  the  issue.  Whatever  of 
sentimental  opposition  to  slavery  there  was  in  that  region  was  crushed. 
Even  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  his  quiet  retreat  at  Monticello,  was  deeply  agitated. 
He  sounded  the  note  of  warning.  He  declared  in  letters  to  his  friends 
that  the  news  of  the  violent  opposition  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  fell 
upon  his  ears  like  a  fire-bell  in  the  night.  Mr.  Clay,  then  comparatively  a 
young  man,  but  never  wedded  to  slavery,  resisted  the  Northern  attempt  to 
prohibit  the  expansion  of  the  institution. 

The  support  of  the  claims  of  slavery  to  recognition  by  the  Constitution 
thus  became,  in  the  South,  the  political  touchstone. 

It  was  not  so  easy  to  unite  the  North  in  opposition  to  this  claim.  The 
opposition  proposed  to  sectionalize,  or  localize  the  institution,  by  prohibit 
ing  it  in  the  territories.  A  succession  of  events,  of  great  importance,  all 
tended  to  this  result.  This  Missouri  question  was  the  first  of  the  great  dis 
turbing  elements.  After  a  long  and  bitter  controversy  upon  the  admission  of 
that  young  state,  a  compromise  was  agreed  upon.  The  North  and  the  South 
may  be  said  to  have  been  parties  to  this  compact,  though  it  was  repealable 
like  all  laws.  The  state  was  admitted  with  its  pro-slavery  constitution.  The 
same  act  prohibited  slavery  in  all  the  territories  north  and  west  of  it,  down 
to  the  parallel  of  thirty-six  degrees  and  thirty  minutes.  There  was  no  pro 
vision  for  the  admission  or  exclusion  of  slavery  south  of  that  line. 

This  Missouri  question  gave  rise  to  the  first  heated  and  extended  agita 
tion  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  It  laid  the  foundation  for  future  controver 
sies.  It  ultimately  led  to  war. 

The  second  great  agitation  on  slavery,  as  a  political,  moral,  and  social 
question,  arose  in  connection  with  the  annexation  of  Texas.  That  vast 
Mexican  province  was  thinly  peopled  by  an  ignorant  and  feeble  race.  It 
began  to  be  overrun  by  planters  with  their  slaves  from  our  Southern  States. 


46  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

This  movement  occurred  about  the  close  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  present 
century.  In  the  course  of  ten  years  they  became  its  masters.  In  1836  they 
declared  independence.  They  set  up  a  republican  form  of  government, 
with  slavery  as  an  existing  institution.  From  the  first,  there  was  a  strong 
feeling  in  favor  of  annexation  to  the  United  States.  This  event  was  brought 
about  in  the  spring  of  1845,  near  the  close  of  John  Tyler's  administration. 
To  Mr.  Calhoun,  of  South  Carolina,  then  Secretary  of  State,  is  due  the  chief 
merit  of  the  acquisition.  He  hesitated  not  to  avow  that  annexation  was 
necessary  to  the  preservation  of  slavery. 

This  measure  was  the  great  issue  between  the  parties  in  the  Presidential 
canvass  of  1844.  It  led  to  the  overthrow  of  the  leaders  of  both  the  great 
parties.  Both  President  Van  Buren  and  Mr.  Clay,  though  differing  widely 
upon  other  questions,  agreed  upon  the  question  of  annexation. 

The  former,  in  a  public  letter,  said  he  opposed  annexation  on  the  ground 
that  Texas  had  been  a  province  of  a  country  with  which  we  were  at  peace  ; 
and  that  annexation  would  be  an  act  of  war,  or  lead  to  a  declaration  of  war 
by  Mexico. 

Mr.  Clay,  in  a  public  letter,  said  :  "I  consider  the  annexation  of  Texas  at 
this  time,  without  the  assent  of  Mexico,  as  a  measure  compromising  the  na 
tional  character,  involving  us  certainly  in  war  with  Mexico,  probably  with 
other  foreign  powers,  dangerous  to  the  integrity  of  the  Union,  inexpedient 
in  the  present  financial  condition  of  the  country,  and  not  called  for  by  any 
general  expression  of  public  opinion." 

This  expression  of  opinion  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Clay  was  afterwards  — 
July  i,  1844,  —  qualified  by  a  letter  to  a  Southern  friend.  It  is  thought  by 
many  that  this  led  to  his  defeat.  He  said  :  "As  to  the  idea  of  courting  the 
abolitionists,  it  is  perfectly  absurd.  No  man  in  the  United  States  has  been 
half  as  much  abused  by  them  as  I  have  been.  .  .  .  Personally  I  could 
have  no  objection  to  the  annexation  of  Texas  ;  but  I  certainly  would  be  un 
willing  to  see  the  present  Union  dissolved,  or  seriously  jeoparded,  for  th* 
sake  of  acquiring  Texas." 

This  expression  of  indifference  to  the  acquisition  of  slave-holding  terri 
tory  lost  to  Mr.  Clay  thousands  of  Northern  votes  ;  while,  as  he  retracted 
nothing  of  his  original  declaration,  it  gained  him  none  in  the  South.  He 
was  nominated  by  the  convention  without  opposition,  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  he  had  more  warm  personal  friends  than  any  man  in  America. 

Mr.  Van  Buren,  too,  was  the  favorite  of  his  party.  A  decided  majority 
of  the  convention  were  his  pronounced  friends.  They  gave  him  146  votes, 
against  120  for  all  others.  But  Mr.  Hammond,  in  his  valuable  political  his 
tory  of  New-York,  charges  that  many  delegates  who  were  instructed  to  vote 
for  him  were  his  secret  political  foes,  and  conspired  with  his  open  oppo 
nents  to  defeat  him  by  voting  with  them  for  the  rule  which  required  two- 
thirds  of  the  votes  to  effect  a  nomination.  It  was  charged  that  Mr. 


AGGRESSIVE  PRO-SLAVERY  POLICY.  47 

Buchanan,  and  Mr.  Cave  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  were  in  the  conspiracy. 
Under  that  rule  it  became  apparent,  after  seven  ballots,  that  Mr.  Van  Buren 
could  not  receive  the  requisite  two-thirds  of  the  ballots ;  when  his  friend, 
Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of  New-York,  by  his  authority,  withdrew  his  name. 

Silas  Wright,  of  New- York,  might  have  been  received  in  Mr.  Van 
Buren's  place  ;  but  he  peremptorily  declined  to  have  his  name  used,  for  a 
two-fold  and  honorable  reason.  It  might  appear  like  bad  faith  to  his  friend, 
Mr.  Van  Buren ;  while  it  would  mislead  the  public,  inasmuch  as  he  fully 
subscribed  to  the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Van  Buren  on  the  question  of  an 
nexation.  For  like  reasons  Mr.  Wright  declined  the  nomination  for  the 
Vice-Presidency. 

Some  controversy  ensued  from  these  events. 

Mr.  Polk  was  nominated  with  the  understanding  that  as  the  friend  of 
General  Jackson,  he  was  also  the  friend  of  Mr.  Van  Buren.  The  Demo 
crats  of  Tennessee  were  understood  to  be  his  friends.  But  when  Mr.  Polk 
came  into  office  he  appointed  to  high  places  the  men  who  had  conspired 
against  Mr.  Van  Buren.  At  least,  this  is  the  statement  of  Mr.  Hammond, 
who  says : 

"  After  Mr.  Folk's  election,  Mr.  Buchanan,  who  at  the  convention  influ 
enced  the  delegation  of  Pennsylvania  against  Mr.  Van  Buren,  was  ap 
pointed  Secretary  of  State.  Mr.  Walker,  a  most  zealous  opponent  in  the 
convention  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  was  made  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ;  Mr. 
Cave  Johnson,  the  confidential  friend  of  the  New- York  delegation,  received 
the  office  of  Postmaster-General ;  and  on  General  Saunders  (the  mover  of 
the  two-thirds  rule)  was  conferred  a  foreign  mission." 

It  has  also  been  stated  that  Mr.  Polk  discarded  Messrs.  Blair  and  Rives, 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  as  editors  and  publishers  of  the  party  organ 
in  Washington.  An  organ  was  in  those  days  regarded  as  an  indispensable 
institution  to  the  party  in  power.  Mr.  Polk  selected  Mr.  Ritchie  of  the 
Richmond  Enquirer  for  that  confidential  and  lucrative  post.  Mr.  Benton, 
in  his  Thirty  Tears'  View,  calls  attention  to  this  fact.  He  states  that  the 
change  was  made  on  the  demand  of  the  South  Carolina  delegation,  as  a  con 
dition  of  their  support. 

To  return  from  this  explanatory  digression,  the  election  of  Mr.  Polk 
was  the  triumph  of  the  active,  aggressive  policy  of  the  Southern  friends  of 
slavery  extension  in  the  Union,  over  the  passive,  evasive  course  of  the  Whigs, 
and  of  the  Northern  Democrats. 

James  G.  Birney  became  the  anti-slavery  candidate  for  the  Presidency. 
He  received  62,300  votes  in  the  entire  Union.  Of  these,  New- York  gave 
him  15,812.  This  was  enough  to  have  turned  the  scale  in  favor  of  Mr. 
Clay,  and  to  have  made  him  President.  Mr.  Van  Buren's  plurality  in  New- 
York  was  only  5,109.  Mr.  Folk's  plurality  over  Mr.  Clay  in  the  Union  was 
38,175;  while  the  combined  votes  of  Messrs.  Clay  and  Birney  exceeded 
the  vote  of  Mr.  Polk  by  24,125. 


48  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  annexation  of  Texas  led  to  a  war  with  Mexico.  It  was  followed  by 
the  acquisition  of  vast  territories.  Further  and  greater  controversies  about 
slavery  extension  were  aroused. 

California  was  brought  into  the  Union  without  an  enabling  act.  The 
people  assembled  in  convention  without  the  authority  of  Congress.  They 
framed  a  constitution  which  prohibited  slavery.  The  state  was  admitted 
with  this  anti-slavery  constitution.  It  involved  a  desperate  struggle  with 
the  slave-holding  interests.  This  result  was  planned,  though  not  consum 
mated,  during  the  administration  of  General  Taylor,  a  large  Louisiana  planter. 
He  died  July  n,  1850,  and  California  was  admitted  as  a  state  of  the  Union 
on  September  9th  of  the  same  year. 

In  view  of  the  ultimate  results  of  these  sectional  struggles,  how  frail  and 
pitiable  appears  our  human  wisdom  !  The  South,  in  the  interests  of  slavery, 
succeeded  in  annexing  Texas.  Other  vast  Mexican  territories  were  ac 
quired,  over  which  it  was  hoped  that  slavery  would  be  extended  and  perpet 
uated.  The  North,  or  a  large  party  in  the  North,  resisted  the  annexation 
and  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory.  The  resistance  came  solely  from 
motives  of  opposition  to  slavery  and  its  extension.  But  the  triumphant  party 
soon  found  that  a  large  part  of  the  golden  prize  was  appropriated  by  their 
opponents ;  and  in  the  end  the  institution  of  slavery  itself  tottered  to  its  fall. 

The  deep  fracture  in  the  Democratic  ranks  caused  by  the  defeat  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren's  nomination  in  1844  was  never  healed.  It  led  to  the  candidacy 
of  Mr.  Van  Buren  on  the  "  Free  Soil"  ticket,  and  to  the  defeat  of  the  party 
under  the  leadership  of  General  Cass,  in  1848.  Mr.  Van  Buren  led  a  for 
lorn  hope.  He  had  the  splendors  of  his  son's  rhetoric,  which  aroused  a 
dormant  sentiment.  The  votes  of  a  majority  of  the  party  in  the  State  of 
New-York  were  given  to  him.  The  vote  for  General  Taylor,  the  Whig 
candidate,  was  218,603;  Mr.  Van  Buren  received  120,510;  and  General 
Cass,  the  regular  candidate  of  the  party,  only  114,318.  In  the  Union,  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  who  was  cordially  supported  by  the  anti-slavery  party,  or  that 
portion  of  it  which  voted  at  all,  received  291,263  votes. 

In  1852,  the  anti-slavery  candidate,  John  P.  Hale,  received  only  156,149. 
This  result  shows  that  the  merely  personal  following  of  Mr.  Van  Buren 
returned  to  the  Democratic  fold  when  he  was  no  longer  in  the  field. 

In  1850,  a  sort  of  compromise  of  the  slavery  controversy  was  effected. 
It  was  far  from  being  satisfactory  to  the  abolitionists,  and  the  extreme  pro- 
slavery  party.  It  served,  however,  to  remove  from  prominent  view  any 
question  calculated  to  arouse  popular  feeling. 

It  is  true  that  the  fugitive-slave  act  of  1850  was  well  calculated  to  keep 
up  and  did  foster  agitation.  It  produced  almost  daily  causes  of  irritation 
and  excitement.  Anti-slavery  sentiment  fed  upon  this  food.  It  became 
the  subject,  and  furnished  the  incidents  of  the  most  exciting  story  of  the 
age,  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin.  Millions  of  copies  were  circulated.  It  was 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY.  49 

translated  into  every  language  of  Christendom.  It  awakened  a  sentiment 
against  slavery,  akin  in  degree  and  intensity  to  that  which  Peter  the  Her 
mit  aroused  against  the  Moslem  occupants  of  the  Holy  Land  —  the  de- 
filers  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre. 

In  December,  1853,  Senator  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  introduced  a  bill  to 
organize  the  vast  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  He  desired  them  to 
be  under  one  government,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  existing  Missouri  Compro 
mise.  These  territories  all  lay  north  of  36°,  30',  and  slavery  had  been  pro 
hibited  throughout  its  extent,  by  the  act  which  admitted  the  State  of  Mis 
souri  into  the  Union.  Mr.  Dixon,  a  Whig  Senator  from  the  State  of  Ken 
tucky,  moved  to  amend  the  bill  by  declaring  the  repeal  of  the  anti-slavery 
provision.  This  startling  proposition  from  a  Whig  emboldened  the  South 
ern  Senators  and  Representatives  to  take,  almost  in  a  body,  similar  ground. 
It  is  within  the  author's  personal  knowledge  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  averse 
to  the  Dixon  proposition.  Reluctantly  he  amended  his  bill  by  adopting 
Dixon's  proposition.  He  undertook  to  defend  it  on  a  principle.  He  de 
cided  to  divide  the  territory  into  two  governments.  He  thought  to  make 
one  slave,  and  one  free  state.  He  proposed,  but  events  disposed  of  his 
scheme. 

In  connection  with  this  measure  he  enunciated  his  doctrine  of  popular 
sovereignty.  This  doctrine  assumed  that  the  citizens  of  each  separate  com 
munity  had  the  right  to  shape  their  institutions  to  suit  themselves  ;  and  to  ad 
mit  or  exclude  slavery  as  they  should  see  fit.  It  denied  that  the  Constitution 
by  its  own  vigor,  carried  slavery  to  the  territories. 

For  a  time  this  theory  of  the  Constitution  appeared  to  be  acceptable  to 
the  South.  But  it  failed  to  secure  the  admission  of  Kansas  with  slavery,  as 
it  had  failed  in  California.  The  Southern  politicians  thereupon  rebelled 
against  it.  The  position  was  boldly  assumed  by  them,  that  the  Constitution 
established  and  guaranteed  the  right  of  slave-holding  in  all  the  territories  of 
the  Union  ;  and  that  an  act  of  Congress,  or  an  act  of  a  territorial  legislature 
providing  for  the  exclusion  of  slavery,  would  be  an  invasion  of  the  constitu 
tional  rights  of  the  South,  a  spoliation  of  property,  and  an  infraction  of  a 
settled  compact. 

These  pretensions  of  the  pro-slavery  school  of  politicians  tended  greatly  to 
strengthen  and  augment  the  anti-slavery  party.  It  divided  the  old  parties 
The  Democracy  lost  some  of  its  most  brilliant  defenders.  The  struggle  for  the 
possession  of  Kansas,  between  the  "  Free-soilers  "  and  the  pro-slavery  party, 
enlisted  the  Northern  people  on  one  side,  and  the  Southern  on  the  other. 
There  never  was  such  a  political  conflict.  It  was  the  precursor  of  war. 
The  effect  was  to  intensify  the  anti-slavery  and  the  pro-slavery  sentiment  of 
the  country.  It  did  more.  It  nearly  crushed  out  the  Democratic  party.  It 
arrayed  its  members  against  each  other.  The  conflict  in  Kansas  involved, 
for  a  time,  physical  force  rather  than  reason. 


50  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  John  Brown  raid  was  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  rights  of  Virginia. 
It  seemed  at  first  to  injure  the  anti-slavery  cause  ;  but  all  sympathy  with  it 
was  promptly  disclaimed  by  the  Republican  leaders.  Its  origin  has  not 
been  traced  beyond  the  narrow  circle  of  Brown's  fanatical  associates.  No 
man  who  was  not  a  fit  subject  for  the  mad-house  could  fairly  be  suspected 
of  sympathizing  with  an  enterprise  which  was  as  preposterous  as  it  was 
criminal. 

The  Whig  party  may  be  said  to  have  disbanded  soon  after  the  Presiden 
tial  election  of  1852.  The  Northern  and  Southern  wings  could  no  longer 
harmonize  on  the  slavery  question.  In  their  desperate  efforts  to  find  new 
common  ground  to  stand  on,  and  new  issues  upon  which  to  dispute  the  as 
cendency  of  the  Democrats,  they  selected  the  narrow  and  illiberal  one  of  re 
stricting  the  rights  of  foreigners  who  come  to  this  country  to  reside.  It 
aimed  at  the  political  ostracism  of  Roman  Catholics.  But  the  pre-eminent 
importance  of  the  slavery  controversy  overrode  these  side  issues ;  and  the 
effect  of  the  American  organization  was  to  alienate  those  who  might  other 
wise  have  co-operated  against  the  rising  party  of  anti-slavery. 

The  first  serious  struggle  by  the  Republicans  for  power  in  the  Nation 
was  made  in  1855.  In  that  year  began  the  famous  contest  over  the  Speaker- 
ship,  which,  after  one  hundred  and  thirty-three  ballots,  resulted  in  the  elec 
tion  of  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  of  Massachusetts.  A  bare  majority  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  was  then  secured  by  them.  The  great  success 
of  the  new  party  was  the  legitimate  fruit  of  the  pro-slavery  policy.  The 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  the  attempts  to  force  slavery  into 
Kansas  against  the  wishes  of  the  people  gave  great  impulse  to  the  new  party. 
In  the  following  year,  1856,  the  Republicans  made  a  formidable  effort  to 
elect  a  President.  They  were  defeated  under  their  leader,  John  C.  Fremont, 
by  James  Buchanan.  They  then  took  the  lead  of  the  "  Americans,"  as  the 
great  party  of  opposition  to  the  Democracy.  In  that  election,  Mr.  Buchanan 
received  1,838,169  of  the  popular  vote,  and  174  electoral  votes.  Mr.  Fre 
mont  received  1,341,264  of  the  popular  vote,  and  114  electoral  votes.  Mr. 
Fillmore,  the  American  candidate,  received  874,534  of  the  popular  vote, 
and  only  eight  electoral  votes. 

While  other  writers  have  dwelt  elaborately  upon  the  teterrima  causa 
belli,  to  wit,  slavery,  and  exhaustively  traced  its  influence  from  its  earliest  es 
tablishment  in  our  hemisphere,  the  author  is  content  to  make  a  less  elaborate 
chapter  upon  that  head.  Slavery  has  been  called  the  trembling  needle 
which  pointed  the  course  amidst  the  tumultuous  discussions  of  our  Con 
gresses  until  the  Civil  War  began.  From  Jan.  31,  1831,  when  William 
Lloyd  Garrison  established  the  Liberator,  the  discussion  was  never  remiss 
upon  any  opportunity  by  the  slavery  and  anti-slavery  zealots.  The  motto  of 
the  abolitionist  was  immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation.  Consider 
ing  the  relation  of  slavery  to  civilization,  this  sealed  its  fate.  In  1833  the. 


THE  NORTHERN  ABOLITIONISTS.  51 

American  Anti-slavery  Society  made  the  conflict  flagrant.  The  right  of  peti 
tion,  the  safeguard  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  fugitive-slave  law  were 
only  incidental  and  inflammatory  topics  leading  to  the  one  main  question.  In 
the  North,  abolitionists  were  hunted  by  mobs  ;  but  they  were  not  hunted  so 
much  because  they  were  abolitionists  as  because  the  great  body  of  people  at 
that  time  believed  that  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question  would  jeopard 
the  Union.  The  Constitution  had  been  called  "  a  covenant  with  hell." 
But  slavery  could  only  be  legally  ostracized  and  crushed  by  an  amendment 
of  that  instrument.  This  it  received  at  the  end  of  the  war,  in  the  mode  pre 
scribed  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  The  question  was  finally  settled 
by  the  defeat  of  the  secession  movement,  which  was  designed  to  maintain 
slavery  in  full  vigor  on  this  continent. 

When,  in  1856,  Mr.  Seward  declared  that  there  was  an  "irrepressible 
conflict "  between  freedom  and  slavery,  his  political  opponents  charged  and 
believed  that  his  purpose  was  to  bring  about  the  conflict.     They  regarded 
him  as  an  unscrupulous  demagogue,  who  was  willing   to  inflame  popular 
passions  at  the  risk  of  producing  civil  war,  if  he  could  thereby  make  himself 
President  of  the  United  States.     But  now,  in  the  light  of  American  history, 
all  candid  readers  will  admit  that  whatever  may  have  been  the  motive  of 
that  great  statesman,  he  enunciated  the  truth  in  trenchant  language.     For, 
from  the  foundation  of  the  government  down  to  the  era  of  the  Civil  War, 
the  collisions  and  irritations  between  our  incongruous  social  forces  became 
more  and  more  frequent   and   exasperating   as  the   progress  of  population 
brought  them  into  closer  contact.     The  increasing  facilities  of  intercourse 
made  it  easier  for  slaves  to  run  away.     The  Constitution  required  that  the 
runaways  should  be  "  delivered  up  "  to  their  masters  ;  and  the  fugitive-slave 
acts  required  that  the  surrender  should   be  made  without  a  trial  by  jury. 
Such  proceedings  naturally  awakened  a  strong  feeling  among  Northern  peo 
ple  in  regard  to  the  injustice  of  slavery,  the  inconsistency  of  the  system  with 
the  principles  of  civil  liberty,  and  their  own  responsibility  for  the  existence 
and  enforcement  of  the  unjust  laws.     The  extension  of  slavery  into  the  terri 
tories  was  another  great  source  of  irritation  and  alienation  of  feeling  between 
Northern  and  Southern  men.     It  involved  the  moral  responsibility  of  North 
ern  communities  in  the  sin  of  spreading  the  institution  over  the  continent ; 
while  at  the  same  time,  slavery  extension  served  to  strengthen  the  political 
power  and  influence  of  slave-holders  in  the  government.    As  already  shown, 
Texas  was  annexed,  as  Mr.  Calhoun  avowed,  for  the  purpose  of  strengthen 
ing  slavery.     It  has  been  stated  by  Mr.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  that,  down  to 
the  year  1861,  the  South,  although  inferior  in  population  and  wealth  to  the 
North,  had  at  all  times  a  large  majority  of  the  Federal  offices  of  the  higher 
grades. 

These  moral  and   political  considerations  naturally   tended   to  arouse  a 
feeling  of  hostility  to  the  South.     Humane  people  revolted  at  the  injustice 


52  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  laws  which  called  upon  them  to  hunt  down  their  poor  neighbors  who  had 
committed  no  crime,  and  which  required  them  to  aid  in  sending  fellow- 
beings  into  perpetual  bondage.  Statesmen,  and  even  mere  politicians  influ 
enced  by  no  high  regard  for  manhood  rights,  saw  their  advantage  in 
strengthening  a  sentiment  which  was  rapidly  developing  into  a  tremendous 
political  force.  There  were  in  the  North  many  earnest  and  able  men  work 
ing  against  slavery  with  singular  disinterestedness  and  inflexible  purpose,  in 
season  and  out  of  season,  by  speech  and  writing.  These,  with  the  devotion 
of  the  prophets  of  old,  were  untiring  in  the  great  cause  of  arousing  the  pub 
lic  conscience  against  the  "  Sin  of  Slavery."  These  men  were  not  always 
judicious  ;  they  were  not  just  to  those  who  differed  from  them.  They  were 
often  extravagant  and  even  fanatical,  but  they  never  faltered  in  their  adher 
ence  to  the  great  central  truth  of  human  liberty.  These  men  would,  at  any 
time,  have  sacrificed  the  Union  rather  than  sustain  political  relations  with 
the  South.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  in  the  South  great  statesmen, 
men  of  large  humanity  and  generous  principles,  who  saw  no  sin  in  slavery, 
who  found  sanction  for  it  in  Holy  Writ,  who  believed  in  that  system  of  labor 
as  the  only  one  adapted  to  their  soil  and  climate.  These  men,  like  their 
brethren  of  the  North,  would  also  sever  their  Federal  relations  rather  than 
submit  to  what  they  regarded  as  an  unjust  and  fanatical  interference  with 
their  inalienable  rights  under  the  Constitution.  Of  these  men,  John  C.  Cal- 
houn  was  both  a  type  and  leader,  in  the  long  and  bitter  anti-slavery  contest 
preceding  the  war.  He  is  much  misunderstood  in  the  North.  A  sketch  of 
that  great  and  good  man  will  close  this  chapter. 

John  Caldwell  Calhoun  was  of  Irish  Presbyterian  stock.  He  was  de 
scended  from  a  race  of  Calvinists,  distinguished  above  all  others  for  holding 
"  fast  to  the  faith"  that  was  in  them.  With  men  of  this  stock,  to  believe 
was  to  know.  To  know  was  to  act.  No  argument,  opposition  or  persecu 
tion  in  any  form,  could  dissuade  them  from  action.  Calhoun  saw  no  wrong 
in  slavery.  In  his  eyes  the  institution  was  "  a  good  —  a  positive  good." 

Calhoun  was  born  in  Abbeville,  South  Carolina,  March  18,  1782.  His 
grandfather  was  James  Calhoun.  He  emigrated  from  Donegal,  Ireland,  in 
J733>  to  Pennsylvania.  He  afterwards  moved  out  on  the  Kanawha  in  Vir 
ginia.  In  1756  he  settled  in  South  Carolina.  James'  son,  Patrick,  married 
Martha  Caldwell,  the  daughter  of  an  Irish  Presbyterian  emigrant.  She 
was  the  mother  of  John  C.  Calhoun. 

John  spent  his  youth  on  his  mother's  farm.  His  father  died  while  he  was 
a  child.  Although  his  mother  was  left  in  moderate  circumstances,  he  had 
few  advantages  of  early  schooling.  When  he  reached  the  age  of  eighteen 
he  began  a  course  of  systematic  study.  He  prepared  for  college  under  the 
instruction  of  his  brother-in-law,  Dr.  Waddel,  a  Presbyterian  clergyman. 
He  entered  Yale,  and  at  the  age  of  twenty-two  graduated  with  high  honors. 

After   this,  he   devoted  three   years  to  the  study  of  law.     Half  of  this 


JOHN  C.  CALHOUN.  53 

time  he  spent  at  the  law-school  in  Litchfield,  Conn.  Having  completed 
this  course,  he  returned  to  Abbeville  and  engaged  in  the  practice  of  his  pro 
fession.  But  the  law  was  not  his  forte.  The  great  questions  of  the  day 
attracted  his  scrutiny.  Politics  offered  a  field  for  his  eloquence.  They 
suited  his  fervid  nature  and  patriotic  ambition.  Soon  he  represented  his 
district  in  the  state  legislature.  In  1811  he  was  elected  as  a  Representa 
tive  to  the  Twelfth  Congress.  The  same  year  he  married  his  cousin  Floride. 
She  was  possessed  of  sufficient  means  to  enable  him  to  pursue  the  career 
on  which  he  had  entered,  with  the  assurance  of  a  modest  competence.  He 
took  an  exceptionally  high  position  in  the  House  from  the  beginning.  At 
his  first  session  Henry  Clay  —  then  Speaker  —  appointed  him  to  the  second 
place  on  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  That  committee  had  before 
it  the  question  of  the  proposed  war  with  Great  Britain.  The  part  of  the 
President's  message  which  related  to  the  outrages  committed  against  our 
commerce  and  flag  by  that  Power  was  referred  to  this  Committee. 

Mr.  Calhoun  wrote  the  report  that  was  afterwards  presented  to  the 
House.  It  was  strongly  in  favor  of  war,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following 
extract : 

"  The  period  has  arrived  when,  in  the  opinion  of  your  committee,  it  is 
the  sacred  duty  of  Congress  to  call  forth  the  patriotism  of  the  country." 

There  was  a  boldness  in  this  report,  and  in  his  speech  in  favor  of  the 
Resolutions  which  were  afterwards  adopted,  that  was  characteristic  of  the 
man  and  of  the  period.  Randolph  opposed  the  report.  He  opposed  all  meas 
ures  looking  to  war.  He  opposed  them  with  great  bitterness.  But  Cal 
houn,  although  in  his  first  session,  was  a  worthy  foeman.  His  was  no  com 
promising  spirit,  ready  to  yield  a  part  to  save  the  residue.  His  motto  was 
expressed  in  his  first  speech.  It  was  this:  "  The  law  of  self-preservation 
is  never  safe,  except  under  the  shield  of  honor." 

But  it  is  not  intended  here  to  review  the  career  of  this  great  American. 
It  is  only  intended  to  describe  his  true  status  and  stature  in  respect  to  the 
two  great  questions  with  which  his  name  has  been  associated,  to  wit :  "  Nul 
lification  "  and  "  Secession  "  ;  both  inspired  by  the  hope  to  protect  slavery. 
He  was  a  nullifier,  but  never  a  secessionist.  He  regarded  secession  as  rev 
olution,  no  more,  no  less.  There  is  not  one  word  in  his  writings  or  public 
utterances  that  can  fairly  be  construed  into  holding  secession  to  be  a  consti 
tutional  remedy.  He  always  spoke  of  that  remedy  as  something  outside  of 
the  Constitution.  He  never  advocated  it.  Nullification  is  a  different  ques 
tion.  He  regarded  it  as  a  constitutional  remedy.  His  opinion  was  that 
each  state  of  the  Union  had  the  power  to  decide  for  itself  in  respect  to  the 
constitutionality  of  any  Federal  law,  and  to  resist  its  enforcement  within  the 
state,  if  the  people  regarded  it  as  unconstitutional.  This  he  believed  to  be 
the  right  of  the  people  within  the  Union ;  and  he  saw  no  inconsistency  in 
this  doctrine. 


54  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Mr.  Calhoun  regarded  slavery  as  a  natural  relation.  Of  all  the  questions 
of  the  period,  it  was  the  abolition  movement  that  gave  him  the  deepest  con 
cern.  He  firmly  believed  that  in  the  event  of  its  success,  the  fate  of  the 
Southern  people  "  would  be  worse  than  that  of  the  aborigines."  To  destroy 
the  relation  of  master  and  slave  would  be  to  restore  the  fruitful  fields  of  the 
South  to  their  primeval  condition.  Calhoun  clearly  saw  the  coming  conflict. 
He  did  not  see  anything  but  ruin  in  emancipation.  "  To  destroy  the  exist 
ing  relations,"  said  he,  u  would  be  to  destroy  the  prosperity  of  the  Southern 
States,  and  to  place  the  two  races  in  a  state  of  conflict  which  must  end  in 
the  expulsion  or  extirpation  of  one  or  the  other."  He  regarded  social  and 
political  equality  as  the  necessary  incidents  of  emancipation,  and  believed 
that  such  equality  between  the  races  was  impossible.  How  fallible  at  the 
best  is  human  judgment !  In  Calhoun's  life-time,  the  great  mass  of  the 
American  people  were  conscientious  believers  in  the  incompatibility  of  the 
two  races.  Even  Lincoln,  at  first,  looked  to  the  expatriation  of  the  emanci 
pated  slaves,  as  the  only  practicable  course.  Yet,  what  a  change  of  condi 
tions  ;  what  an  explosion  of  political  and  social  fallacies,  and  decay  of  pre 
judices  has  this  generation  witnessed !  Slavery  has  been  abolished.  Each 
year  brings  to  the  South  a  larger  return  from  its  industries.  In  Calhoun's 
own  state  the  former  slave  and  master  now  exercise  the  political  and  civil 
functions  of  citizenship  with  equal  right.  Social  equality  still  remains  as 
impracticable  as  Calhoun  regarded  it.  It  does  not  exist  in  any  race  or  peo 
ple.  It  never  will.  Some  must  ever  be  the  masters.  The  mass  must  ever 
be  the  hewers  of  wood  and  the  drawers  of  water.  He  had  less  apprehen 
sion  of  the  destruction  of  the  Union  by  the  assertion  of  states  rights  through 
secession,  than  of  its  destruction  by  consolidation.  Any  one  who  has  ob 
served  the  tendency  toward  the  latter  mode  of  destruction  will  not  be  dis 
posed  to  disregard  its  dangers. 

In  the  commencement  of  his  career,  Mr.  Calhoun  favored  what  was  after 
wards  known  as  Whig  measures,  viz.,  a  national  bank,  a  protective  tariff, 
and  the  development  of  internal  improvements  by  the  general  government. 
About  the  year  1823  he  changed  his  views  in  regard  to  these  measures,  and 
in  1828  he  characterized  the  tariff  bill  of  that  year  as  a  "bill  of  abomina 
tions."  This  was  the  bill  that  led  to  the  nullification  act  in  South  Carolina. 
He  devoted  his  life  to  the  maintenance  of  slavery  and  the  preservation  of  the 
Union.  He  died  on  the  last  day  of  March,  1850,  almost  in  the  forum.  The 
last  words  of  his  last  speech  in  the  Senate,  uttered  in  the  early  part  of  that 
month,  were  these:  "  Having  faithfullv  done  my  duty  to  the  best  of  my 
ability,  both  to  the  Union  and  my  section,  throughout  this  agitation,  I  shall 
have  the  consolation,  let  what  will  come,  that  I  am  free  from  all  responsi 
bility."  Two  friends  then  led  him  out  of  the  Senate  Chamber,  and  his  seat 
was  vacant. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  THIRTY-FIFTH  CONGRESS  —  ITS  ORDEAL  AS  TO  SLAVERY  EXTENSION 
—  KANSAS  AND  THE  TERRITORIAL  QUESTIONS  —  QUADRILATERAL  CONTEST 
FOR  THE  PRESIDENCY  —  THE  CHARLESTON  CONVENTION  —  THE  DOUGLAS 
MAJORITY  — THE  TWO-THIRDS  RULE  — THE  SOUTHERN  DELEGATES  WITH 
DRAW—MR.  LINCOLN  ELECTED  — THE  SPECTRE  OF  WAR. 


THE  writer  of  this  volume  begins  the  first  of  his  three  decades  in 
1855.     But  he  was  not  then  a  member  of  Congress.     It  was  the 
refluent  -wave  that  followed   the   excitement  growing  out   of  the 
Kansas  question,  which  carried  him  into   that   position  with   the 
administration  of  Mr.  Buchanan.     That  issue  was  triangular.     It  had  been 
somewhat  changed  in  so  far  as  the  Northern  states  were  concerned.     The 
Southern  party  had  insisted  on  the  doctrine  that  the  Constitution  by  its  own 
vigor   carried  slavery    into   the    territories.      This  was   the   Breckenridge, 
or    extreme    Southern    doctrine.      The  Southern  vote  was   in  its  support. 
But  the  great  bulk  of  the  Northern  Democratic  vote  favored  the  doctrine 
of  Judge  Douglas,  familiarly  called     "Squatter  Sovereignty."      The  Re 
publican  party  favored  a  congressional  proviso,  like  that  of  Judge  Wilmot, 
forbidding  slavery  in  the  territories. 

The  travail  which  gave  birth  to  Kansas  as  a  state  was  the  old  agony  as 
to  slavery.  It  was  prolonged  and  it  eventuated  in  civil  strife. 

To  understand  the  immediate  cause  of  the  war  requires  a  special  discus 
sion  of  the  conduct  of  the  Thirty-fifth  Congress.  Its  Speaker  was  a  liberal 
South  Carolinian,  Jiames  C.  Orr.  He  afterwards  took  a  large  part  in  the 
resurrection  of  his  state  after  the  war.  The  consequences  of  congres 
sional  action  as  herein  detailed  bring  us  very  close  to  the  great  struggle 
which  threatened  the  Union  with  disseverance,  and  seemed  to  set  back  the 
hands  on  the  dial-plate  of  time  in  our  Western  Continent. 

Had  the  Democratic  party  which  came  into  power  with  Mr.  Buchanan 
and  the  Thirty-fifth  Congress  united  in  wisdom  to  thrust  aside  the  Lecompton 


56  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Constitution,  there  would  have  been  no  distraction  in  its  ranks  as  early  as 
1860.  But  it  is  not  so  sure  that  the  slavery  question  would  not  have  come 
in  some  other  form  to  have  kept  up  the  irrepressible  conflict.  Had  they 
thus  united,  perhaps  the  Charleston  Convention  of  1860  would  have  agreed. 

In  inquiring  into  the  real,  if  not  the  proximate  causes  of  the  war  and  the 
alienation  of  the  sections,  we  cannot  ignore  the  questions  as  to  Kansas. 

To  be  sure,  Kansas  was  the  occasion,  rather  than  the  cause,  of  conflict. 
The  slavery  agitation  was  the  paramount  cause.  There  is  something  ineffa 
bly  repugnant  to  the  human  heart  in  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  The 
idea  of  one  human  being  owning  another  human  being  would  thrust  itself 
forward  in  all  these  struggles,  irrepressibly  foremost.  Whether  in  resistance 
to  the  constitutional  authorities  —  as  in  the  case  of  fugitives  from  justice  and 
labor  —  or  in  the  admission  of  new  states,  or  in  the  organization  of  terri 
tories,  the  anti-slavery  zealot,  whether  sincere  or  not,  handled  a  weapon  so 
tempered  with  seeming  justice,  so  flashing,  as  it  were,  in  defense  of  a 
higher  than  human  law,  and  wreathed  as  with  the  "  beauty  of  the  lilies  "  by 
the  lyric  poetry  of  the  time,  that  the  sanctions  of  authority  were  as  mere 
houses  of  cards  before  his  blows.  No  wonder  that  with  such  an  impulse 
the  devotees  of  anti-slavery,  in  the  language  of  one  of  their  eloquent  cham 
pions,  "  would  rend  the  Union  to  destroy  slavery,  though  hedged  round  by 
the  triple  bars  of  the  national  compact,  and  though  thirty-three  crowned 
sovereigns,  with  arms  in  their  hands,  stood  around  it."  The  pro-slavery 
men  of  1856-7  forgot  the  growing  power  of  this  sentiment,  and  the  increas 
ing  power  of  the  North  to  enforce  it.  They  desperately  struggled  to  force 
Kansas  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  state,  by  a  stupendous  fraud.  In  the 
reaction  against  its  perpetration,  a  fresh  agitation  was  aroused.  This  new 
agitation  outlasted  the  interest  in  the  case  of  Kansas.  It  absorbed  all  the 
energies  of  debate.  The  whole  country  became  a  Kansas.  The  first  elabo 
rate  speech  made  by  the  author  in  Congress,  and,  as  already  noted,  the  first 
made  in  the  new  hall  of  the  House,  on  the  i6th  of  December,  1857,  was 
also  the  first  delivered  against  Lecompton  by  any  one  in  the  lower  branch  of 
Congress.  It  was  taken  to  Judge  Douglas  on  the  Sunday  preceding  the  dis 
cussion,  to  read  him  parts  of  it  in  manuscript.  The  Globe  of  that  time  will 
show  the  debate  and  the  attempt  by  Southern  statesmen,  Messrs.  Bocock, 
Quitman,  Jones,  and  others,  to  cut  it  off.  As  a  consequence  of  this  speech, 
the  writer  lost  caste  with  the  Administration. 

The  excitement  accompanying  that  discussion  has  long  since  subsided. 
The  points  of  the  argument  will  appear  from  this  extract : 

"  I  propose  now  to  nail  against  the  door,  at  the  threshold  of  this  Con 
gress,  my  theses.  When  the  proper  time  comes,  I  will  defend  them, 
whether  from  the  assaults  of  political  friend  or  foe.  I  would  fain  be  silent, 
sir,  here  and  now.  But  silence,  which  is  said  to  be  as  '  harmless  as  a  rose's 
breath/  may  be  as  perilous  as  the  pestilence.  This  peril  comes  from  the  at- 


DEMOCRATIC  POLICY.  57 

tempt  to  forego  the  capital  principle  of  Democratic  policy,  which  I  think 
has  been  done  by  the  constitutional  convention  of  Kansas.  I  maintain : 
i.  That  the  highest  refinement  and  greatest  utility  of  Democratic  policy  — 
the  genius  of  our  institutions —  is  the  right  of  self-government.  2.  That  this 
self-government  means  the  will  of  the  majority,  legally  expressed.  3.  That 
this  self-government  by  majority  rule  was  sacredly  guaranteed  in  the  organic 
act  of  Kansas.  4.  That  it  was  guaranteed  upon  the  question  of  slavery  in 
terms  ;  and  generally  with  respect  to  all  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  peo 
ple.  5.  That  domestic  institutions  include  all  which  are  local,  not  national 
—  state,  not  Federal.  The  phrase  means  that  and  that  only  —  that  always. 
6.  That  the  people  were  to  be  left  perfectly  free  to  establish  or  abolish  slav 
ery,  as  well  as  to  form  and  regulate  their  other  institutions.  7.  That  this 
doctrine  was  recognized  in  every  part  of  the  Confederacy  by  the  Democracy  ; 
fixed  in  their  national  platform  ;  asserted  by  their  speakers  and  presses  ;  reit 
erated  by  their  candidates ;  incorporated  in  messages  and  instructions ;  and 
formed  the  feature  which  distinguished  the  Democracy  from  the  opposition, 
who  maintained  the  doctrine  of  congressional  intervention.  8.  The  Lecomp- 
ton  Constitution,  while  it  is  asserted  that  it  is  submitted  to  the  people  in  the 
essential  point,  thus  recognizing  an  obligation  to  submit  it  in  some  mode, 
cannot,  in  any  event,  be  rejected  by  the  people  of  Kansas.  The  vote  must  be 
for  its  approval,  whether  the  elector  votes  one  way  or  another.  The  people 
may  be  unwilling  to  take  either  of  the  propositions,  and  yet  they  must  vote 
one  or  the  other  of  them.  They  have  to  vote  '  constitution  with  slavery,'  or 
'  constitution  with  no  slavery ' ;  but  the  constitution  they  must  take." 

These  were  the  points  elaborated  in  that  discussion.  Differing  with  Mr. 
Buchanan,  the  author  was  constrained  afterwards  to  differ  with  Judge  Doug 
las  on  the  Compromise  bill  reported  by  a  Committee  of  Conference.  He 
voted  for  the  latter  on  the  ground  that  it  returned  for  a  fair  election  the  fraud 
ulent  constitution  to  the  people,  and  because  there  were  people  enough  for 
a  state  in  Kansas.  This  action  was  fully  justified  by  the  subsequent  action 
of  the  people  under  that  bill.  Subsequently  the  writer  voted  to  receive  the 
free  State  of  Kansas  ;  and,  after  justifying  his  former  vote,  scarcely  exagger 
ated  the  rancour  of  the  campaign,  when  he  said  in  the  House  that : 

"  For  voting  for  this  Conference  bill,  even  after  I  was  justified  by  the  pop 
ular  vote  of  Kansas  in  the  summer  of  1858,  I  was  compelled  to  meet  from 
Republicans  of  Ohio  a  campaign  unexampled  for  its  unprovoked  fierceness,  its 
base  and  baseless  charges  of  personal  corruption,  its  conceit,  its  ignorance,  its 
impudence,  its  poltroonery,  its  billingsgate,  its  brutality,  its  moneyed  corrup 
tion,  its  fanatical  folly,  its  unflagging  slang,  its  drunken  saturnalia,  and  its 
unblushing  libels  and  pious  hypocrisy !  [The  writer  had  not  then  learned 
meekness.]  At  the  capital  of  Ohio,  in  its  most  noble  and  intelligent  pre 
cincts,  the  people,  ashamed  of  and  indignant  at  the  audacious  falsehood  and 
brazen  clamor  from  the  presses  of  the  state,  and  from  the  little  penny-a- 


58  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

liners  and  pettifoggers,  who  echoed  the  libels  of  members  fresh  from  this 
floor — in  spite  of  all  this,  the  people  doubled  my  majority  of  1856.  I  had 
the  satisfaction  —  prouder  than  a  temporary  victory  —  of  seeing  the  policy  I 
had  voted  for  with  the  earnest  conviction  of  duty,  and  with  the  sustaining 
advice  of  such  a  statesman  as  Robert  J.  Walker,  vindicated  by  time,  and 
sustained  by  its  practical  operation.  As  the  crowning  act  of  this  triumph, 
I  shall  vote  for  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  this  constitution.  In  doing 
this,  I  court  all  criticism,  defy  all  menace,  and  truly  represent  almost  every 
man,  woman,  and  child  in  my  district." 

Inasmuch  as  that  vote  for  the  Conference  bill  was  greatly  impugned  and 
as  it  seemed  to  be  a  departure  from  the  original  position  of  Judge  Douglas, 
the  writer  was  solicitous  to  have  the  Judge  explain  their  mutual  relations  to 
this  question.  This  he  did  during  the  campaign  of  1860.  On  the  zoth  of 
September  he  spoke  to  an  immense  meeting  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  in  which 
he  thus  explained  the  differences  between  himself  and  other  Democrats  : 

"  I  made  the  first  speech  in  the  Senate  against  the  Lecompton  Constitu 
tion,  and  without  consulting  Mr.  Cox  or  any  one  else,  and  Mr.  Cox  made 
the  first  speech  against  it  in  the  House,  without  consultation  or  dictation  from 
me.  We  fought  it  through  on  our  own  responsibility  until  Lecompton  was 
dead  ;  and  when  Lecompton  was  defeated,  its  friends  got  up  the  English  bill 
to  cover  its  retreat.  The  Hon.  Robert  J.  Walker,  then  Governor  of  Kansas, 
advised  Mr.  Cox  and  myself  to  go  for  it,  giving  assurance  that  when  presented 
to  the  people  of  Kansas,  they  would  kill  it,  ten  to  one.  Under  these  circum 
stances,  some  of  our  men  felt  it  their  duty  to  go  for  the  bill.  I  did  not  think 
it  a  fair  submission  to  the  will  of  the  people,  and  determined  to  fight  it  too. 
Mr.  Cox  said  he  had  consulted  the  members  of  the  Ohio  delegation,  that 
they  all  agreed  to  vote  for  it,  and  that  under  the  circumstances  he  should  vote 
with  them.  I  told  him  I  had  no  quarrel  with  those  of  my  friends  who  dif 
fered  with  me  honestly  on  that  point,  and  afterwards  I  wrote  letters  in  favor 
of  the  election  of  some  of  those  who  had  voted  for  the  English  bill."  The 
Judge  concluded  by  urging  his  friends  in  the  District  to  "  nail  the  slander 
by  re-electing  Mr.  Cox." 

Had  Judge  Douglas  yielded  his  resolution  on  this  subject,  and  voted  for 
the  Conference  bill,  the  territorial  question  would  not  have  been  mooted  at 
the  Charleston  Convention,  with  so  marked  a  personal  application.  His 
nomination  would  have  been  made  without  division.  For  a  time,  at  least, 
secession  would  have  been  prevented,  and  war  averted.  The  contests  of 
that  time  were  much  embittered  by  the  Dred  Scott  case.  The  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  in  that  case  was  calculated  to  divide  and  disintegrate 
the  old  parties  and  to  build  up  the  Republicans.  Mr.  Douglas  and  the 
Northern  Democrats  sustained  that  decision  ;  but  they  could  not  venture  to 
sustain  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  without  inviting  certain  ruin  to  the 
party  and  defeating  his  personal  aspirations.  It  was  on  this  question  that  he 


DEMOCRACY  AND  SLAVERY. 


59 


finally  broke  with  the  Southern  Democracy.  Henceforward  they  regarded 
him  and  his  followers  as  little  better  than  "  Black  Republicans." 

It  was  under  such  circumstances  of  estrangement  that  the  Democratic 
Convention  met  at  Charleston,  in  the  spring  of  1860.  Mr.  Douglas,  like 
Mr.  Van  Buren  at  Baltimore  sixteen  years  before,  had  a  decided  majority  of 
friends  in  the  convention,  but  not  a  majority  of  two-thirds.  The  two-thirds 
rule  was  now  the  standing  law  of  the  party.  It  proved  fatal  to  the  hopes  of 
Mr.  Douglas.  His  friends  carried  the  question  as  to  the  platform.  Their 
resolutions  re-affirmed  the  platform  adopted  by  the  party  convention  at  Cin 
cinnati  in  1856.  They  added  to  it  a  declaration  of  readiness  to  acquiesce 
in  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court.  This  platform  was  far  from  giving 
satisfaction  to  the  South.  Public  sentiment  in  that  quarter  of  the  Union 
had  taken  a  stride  far  beyond  what  was  deemed  satisfactory  four  years  before. 
The  Cincinnati  platform  referred  to  and  indorsed  by  the  Douglas,  or 
Northern  majority,  merely  declared  that  Congress  had  no  power  under  the 
Constitution  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  states ;  and  that  all  efforts  of 
abolitionists  or  others  to  induce  Congress  to  interfere  with  slavery,  or  to 
take  incipient  steps  in  relation  thereto,  were  calculated  to  lead  to  the  most 
dangerous  and  alarming  consequences.  The  second  Resolution  at  Cincin 
nati  pledged  fidelity  to  the  compromise  measures  of  1850;  "  and  especially 
the  act  for  reclaiming  fugitives  from  service." 

The  Northern  delegates  could  not  be  induced  to  recede  from  the  position 
thus  taken.  Those  of  the  South,  on  the  other  hand,  insisted  on  the  follow 
ing  declaration  of  principles  : 

' '  Resolved,  That  the  Democracy  of  the  United  States  hold  these  cardi 
nal  principles  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  territories.  First,  That  Con 
gress  has  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  territories.  Second,  That  the 
Territorial  Legislature  has  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in  any  territory,  nor 
to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves  therein,  nor  any  power  to  exclude 
slavery  therefrom,  nor  any  power  to  destroy  or  impair  the  right  of  property 
in  slaves  by  any  legislation  whatever." 

The  author  attended  that  convention  and  heard  the  argument  upon  which 
the  distraction  ensued.  The  most  conspicuous  orator  of  the  South,  William 
L.  Yancy,  advocated  the  constitutional  right  to  carry  slavery  into  the  territo 
ries,  which  he  held  to  be  the  common  property  of  all  the  states ;  and  as 
slaves  were  property,  that  it  would  be  equivalent  to  the  destruction  of  that 
property  to  refuse  it  the  constitutional  asgis.  Other  able  men  in  that  conven 
tion  seconded  this  splendid  effort  of  the  Southern  Demosthenes. 

He  was  answered  by  George  E.  Pugh,  then  Senator  from  Ohio,  a  rare 
logician,  and  an  excellent  lawyer.  The  fame  of  this  gifted  orator's  early 
efforts  in  Ohio  before  the  Legislature,  and  as  attorney-general  of  that  state, 
was  enhanced  by  the  conspicuous  ability  with  which  he  had  enforced  his 
views  in  the  Federal  Senate.  Small  in  person,  keen  of  eye,  with  a  voice 


60  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

full  of  music,  over  which  he  had  rare  command,  he  conquered  as  much  by 
his  logical  persuasion  and  defiant  manner  as  by  his  fervent  eloquence.  The 
writer  first  saw  him  in  Cincinnati,  where  he  was  associated  with  him  in  the 
practice  of  the  law  as  early  as  1847.  Mr.  ^ugh  had  then  just  returned  from 
the  Mexican  War,  in  which,  as  he  said,  he  had  gained  no  other  laurels  than 
those  which  belonged  to  the  soldier  who  had  gallanted  mules  up  the  Rio 
Grande  to  Cammargo. 

Next  to  him  came  William  A.  Richardson,  of  Illinois,  who  was  also  in 
the  Charleston  Convention,  and  next  to  him  was  Henry  B.  Payne,  the 
recently-elected  Senator  from  Ohio,  as  a  champion  of  Judge  Douglas  and  his 
views  of  sovereignty.  He  made  a  strong  impression  at  Charleston,  and  en 
deavored  to  reconcile  the  party  with  a  view  to  avert  disunion  and  war.  The 
history  of  that  convention  is  public  property.  It  tells  how  they  divided  ;  how 
Caleb  Gushing,  the  elegant  casuist,  ruled  upon  certain  questions  as  to  the 
casting  of  the  vote  of  the  states  either  individually  or  by  unit ;  how  a  por 
tion  of  them  nominated  Douglas,  and  Fitzpatrick  of  Alabama ;  and  how 
another  portion,  representing  the  South,  nominated  John  C.  Breckenridger 
of  Kentucky,  and  Joseph  Lane,  of  Oregon.  These  are  facts  well  known. 

When  the  firm  determination  of  the  Douglas  majority  in  the  Charleston 
Convention  to  adhere  to  their  platform  became  manifest,  the  delegates  from 
seven  of  the  Southern  States  withdrew  from  the  convention  ;  and  soon  after 
an  adjournment  to  Baltimore  was  agreed  upon.  The  anti-Douglas  wing- 
agreed  to  meet  at  Richmond,  in  Virginia.  The  Baltimore  Convention, 
composed  mainly  of  Northern  men,  nominated  Stephen  A.  Douglas  for 
President,  and  Herschel  V.  Johnson,  of  Georgia,  for  Vice-President.  The 
Richmond  Convention  nominated  John  C.  Breckenridge,  of  Kentucky,  for 
President,  and  Joseph  Lane,  of  Oregon,  for  Vice-President. 

Another  Baltimore  Convention  nominated  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  for 
President,  and  Edward  Everett,  of  Massachusetts,  for  Vice-President. 
They  styled  themselves  the  "Constitutional  Union"  party;  but.  consisted 
only  of  the  remnants  of  the  Whigs  and  "  Americans." 

The  Republicans  met  in  convention  at  Chicago,  and  nominated  Abraham 
Lincoln  for  President,  and  Hannibal  Hamlin,  of  Maine,  for  Vice-President. 

This  quadrilateral  struggle  for  power  marked  the  beginning  of  an  event 
ful  era  in  the  history  of  the  country.  It  resulted  in  the  .destruction  of  the 
chief  basis  of  the  old  parties —  slavery.  The  emancipated  slaves  came  next 
in  order.  The  question  as  to  their  status  has  passed  away,  and  questions 
of  finance,  commerce,  and  honest  administration  alone  absorb  the  public 
interest. 

The  total  popular  vote  cast  in  1860  was  4,676,853,  of  which  Mr.  Lin 
coln  received  1,866,352;  Mr.  Douglas  received  i, 375?  157  5  Mr.  Brecken 
ridge  received  845,763  ;  and  Mr.  Bell  received  589,581.  The  total  electoral 
vote  was  303;  of  which  Mr.  Lincoln  received  180;  Mr.  Breckenridge 


FAILURE  OF  BUCHANAN'S  ADMINISTRATION.  6l 

received  72  ;  Mr.  Bell  39,  and  Mr.  Douglas  12.  It  thus  appears  that  Mr. 
Douglas,  whose  popular  vote  was  nearly  equal  to  the  combined  votes  given 
to  Messrs.  Breckenridge  and  Bell,  received  just  one-sixth  of  the  electoral 
votes  of  Mr.  Breckenridge,  and  less  than  a  third  of  those  given  to  Mr.  Bell. 

Mr.  Lincoln  received  the  electoral  votes  of  all  the  free  states,  except 
three  of  New  Jersey's  seven  votes,  which  were  given  to  Mr.  Bell.  Mr. 
Breckenridge  received  the  electoral  votes  of  twelve  of  the  sixteen  slave-hold 
ing  states.  Three  of  them,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Virginia,  voted  for 
Mr.  Bell ;  and  Missouri  voted  for  Mr.  Douglas. 

The  contest  in  these  conventions  was  preliminary  to  that  of  1860.  It 
turned  upon  the  administration  of  James  Buchanan  and  its  defiance  by 
Stephen  A.  Douglas.  As  that  administration  was  signalized  by  the  unsuc 
cessful  attempt  to  bring  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton  Consti 
tution,  and  by  unsuccessful  attempts  to  enforce  the  fugitive-slave  act,  because 
of  the  action  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  Governor  of  Ohio,  indorsed  by  the 
general  sentiment  of  the  Republican  party  of  the  North ;  so  it  became 
the  shibboleth  of  the  party  cries  of  1860.  In  addition,  the  contest  was 
further  embittered,  if  not  energized,  upon  the  question  of  slavery. 

The  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  which  took  place  in  November,  1860,  not 
only  settled  the  issues  against  the  South,  but  against  the  friends  and  doc 
trine  of  Judge  Douglas.  Congress  met  in  December  following  ;  then  arose 
for  desperate  debate  all  the  varied  questions  involving  human  servitude.  It 
was  to  the  composition  of  these  questions  that  the  good  men  of  that  time 
addressed  themselves.  That  Congress  was  one  of  marked  ability.  The 
South,  especially,  was  ably  represented  The  hidden  facts,  the  inner  life,  the 
scenes  and  incidents  which  never  appear  on  public  record,  and  seldom 
appear  even  in  the  newspaper,  when  they  shall  transpire  will  give  to  that 
Congress  the  graphic  interest  of  a  battle  picture.  Out  of  its  discussions, 
devices,  and  seditions  arose  the  bloody  spectre  of  war !  It  is  the  aim  of 
the  writer  to  illustrate  some  of  the  incidents  and  scenes  of  that  period. 
There  is  much  of  interest  as  yet  unwritten  clinging  to  the  actors  in  that 
drama  —  a  drama  whose  last  act  had  its  tragical  denouement  in  the  assassin 
ation  of  the  kind,  and  good,  and  great  Chief  Magistrate  of  a  newly-resur 
rected  nation. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  THIRTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS  —  ITS  CHARACTERISTICS,  OPINIONS,  AND  VOTES  — 
CONGRESSIONAL  ACTION  LEADING  TO  DISUNION  — THE  SENATE  LEADERS— 
EFFORTS  TO  STAY  SECESSION  —  EXTREMISTS  DEFEAT  THE  COMPROMISE  — 
CRITTENDEN'S  LAST  APPEAL  —  JEFFERSON  DAVIS  NOT  ANXIOUS  TO  SECEDE 
—  THE  EXTREMISTS  IN  THE  HOUSE— THE  UNION  PHALANX  -  CLEMENT 
L.  VALLANDIGHAM. 

IT  is  a  common  practice,  since  the  great  success  of  the  Federal  arms  in 
putting  down  the  insurgent  states,  to  look  upon  the  "  Lost  Cause"  as 
having  been  altogether  in  the  wrong ;  but  unless  there  was  great  and 
general  provocation  to  revolt,  no  such  harmonious  action  in  favor  of 
secession  could  have  been  taken  by  the  Southern  States,  It  will  not  be  for 
gotten  by  those  who  participated  in  the  discussions  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Con 
gress  which  preceded  and  presaged  the  war,  that  great  attempts  were  then 
made  by  eminent  statesmen  to  stay  the  progress  of  secession.  Nor  were 
these  attempts  confined  to  the  Senate  and  House.  They  were  made  in 
u  Peace  Conventions,"  and  in  other  bodies,  which  had  great  influence  with 
business  boards  and  state  legislatures.  Those  who  thus  acted  must  have  had 
hopeful  reason  for  their  attempts  to  reconcile  the  sections.  The  faults  were 
not  all  on  one  side.  The  greatest  grievance  of  the  South  was  not,  perhaps, 
as  openly  expressed  as  it  might  have  been.  The  moral  sense  of  mankind 
did  not  sustain  the  institution  of  slavery.  The  breaches  of  the  Constitution 
in  respect  to  the  fugitive-slave  law  had  been  frequent  and  aggravating.  That 
law  had  been  maintained  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Its  viola 
tion  was  a  pregnant  cause  of  complaint.  On  constitutional  grounds  that 
law  should  have  been  sustained.  The  action  of  certain  states  of  the  North  in 
obstructing  its  execution,  notably  in  Wisconsin  and  Ohio,  was  defended  in 
and  out  of  Congress  on  moral,  constitutional,  and  legal  grounds.  Even 
such  eminent  men  as  Salmon  P.  Chase,  then  Governor  of  Ohio,  when  the 
famous  Oberlin  case  of  Plumb,  Peck,  et  al.  was  before  the  state  court  upon 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  did  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  personal  liberty 


PROVOCATION  TO  SECESSION.  63 

was  of  greater  moment  than  the  Constitution  ;  that  state  rights  were  superior 
to  Federal  decrees  ;  and  that  no  mandate  of  the  Federal  government  should 
be  obeyed  for  the  return  of  human  beings  to  bondage. 

It  is  well  known  that  Mr.  Chase  advised  Mr.  Lincoln  to  let  the  seceding 
states  go,  rather  than  resort  to  armed  coercion.  Indeed,  Mr.  Chase  had 
preached  the  state  rights  theory  all  his  life  in  justification  of  state  resistance 
to  the  enforcement  of  the  fugitive-slave  law.  From  the  case  of  Jones  us. 

Van  Zant,  in  1842,  to  the  celebrated  Oberlin  fugitive-slave  rescue  cases 

Ex  parte  Langston  and  Ex  parte  Bushnell,  in  1859,  reported  in  the  Ninth 
Ohio  State  Reports,  the  Ohio  friends  of  Chase  did  not  hesitate  to  express,  in 
the  most  unqualified  manner,  their  determination  to  nullify  any  Federal  law 
or  act  of  which  they  did  not  approve,  in  connection  with  the  slavery  question. 
The  cases  of  Langston  and  Bushnell  were  prosecuted  on  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus,  by  the  State  Attorney-General,  C.  P.  Wolcott,  under  the  direction 
of  Governor  Chase,  for  the  release  of  those  parties  who  had  been  convicted 
under  the  Federal  statute,  and  in  a  Federal  court,  for  violating  the  fugitive- 
slave  law.  On  that  occasion  Governor  Chase  openly  declared  that  he  would 
sustain  by  force,  if  necessary,  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio 
against  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  even  if  it 
should  result  in  a  collision  between  the  state  and  the  general  government. 
Not  at  any  time  in  South  Carolina,  among  the  most  ardent  of  the  Calhoun 
school,  was  "nullification"  more  rife  or  aggressive  than  among  the  Ohio 
abolitionists.  What  cared  either  of  these  factionists  for  argument.  They 
believed  they  were  right ;  and  if  the  Constitution  disagreed  with  their 
theories,  the  Constitution  must  go  —  not  their  theories. 

The  territorial  question,  already  referred  to,  had  no  less  magnitude  in  the 
minds  of  the  Southern  people.  That  grievance  took  the  form  of  a  com 
plaint  that  the  Constitution  was  violated  by  the  popular  sovereignty,  in  de 
claring  against  slavery  in  organic  laws  for  the  territories,  preliminary  to  their 
admission  as  states.  When  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress  assembled,  the  mem 
bers  who  stood  between  the  factional  sections,  under  the  leadership  of  Judge 
Douglas,  George  E.  Pugh,  Senator  Stewart,  of  Michigan,  and  others  in  the 
Senate,  and  of  William  A.  Richardson,  Thomas  L.  Harris,  and  others  in  the 
House,  found  themselves  in  a  small  minority.  They  were  between  the  two 
fires  of  implacable  opponents.  In  attempting  to  emulate  the  Christian  phil 
osophy  of  reconciling  enmities,  many  of  these  peacemakers  found  them 
selves  driven  from  their  party  associations  ;  and  others  were  quick  to  respond 
to  the  allurements  of  the  vigorous  party  which  was  then  approaching  power. 
Whatever  justification  there  may  have  been  for  the  complaints  of  the  Southern 
statesmen  and  states  against  the  mal-administration  of  Federal  laws  by 
Northern  people  and  states,  there  was  no  such  grievance  as  would  justify  se 
cession  and  the  dispartment  of  the  country.  There  was  no  difference  that 
would  justify  either  secession  or  revolution.  No  revolutions,  according  to 


64  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Sir  James  Macintosh,  are  justifiable,  however  well  grounded  upon  griev 
ances,  without  a  reasonable  probability  of  a  successful  termination.  True, 
there  was  in  that  Congress  an  exaltation  on  the  part  of  Southern  men  which 
led  them  to  hope,  even  before  Sumpter  was  fired  upon,  that  the  separation 
which  they  sought  would  be  accomplished.  Had  they,  even  a  priori,  consid 
ered  the  mechanical  forces  of  the  North  which  are  now  so  manifest  in  the 
results  of  the  war,  they  might  well  have  halted  upon  the  dogma  of  Sir 
James  Macintosh.  But  among  the  many  fine  traits  of  Southern  men  was 
that  impetuosity  and  ardor  of  sentiment  and  heart  which  does  not  look  to 
consequences  when  there  is  conviction  in  a  justifiable  cause.  In  the  light  of 
historical  philosophy,  an  unbiased  mind  can  apprehend  what  a  tremendous 
hold  the  mere  abstract  doctrine  of  secession  had  upon  these  men,  who  antici 
pated  a  still  larger  curtailment  of  their  constitutional  rights.  When  it  is  re 
membered  that  there  wrere  real  grounds  for  this  apprehension,  and  when  it 
was  argued  with  so  much  logic  and  brilliancy  that  the  rights  of  the  states 
could  be  preserved  only  in  a  new  confederacy,  it  is  not  marvelous  that  the 
call  for  secession  fired  the  Southern  heart. 

When  the  time  for  final  action  came,  the  movements  in  favor  of  seces 
sion  were  made  with  great  formality  and  solemnity.  Ordinances  came  with 
all  the  precision  and  regularity  of  legislative  order.  States  withdrew  in  the 
presence  of  excited  and  awe-struck  audiences,  after  the  most  dramatic  and 
apparently  authorized  sanction.  The  great  body  of  the  oratory  of  that 
time  came  from  such  men  as  Benjamin,  Davis,  Curry,  Lamar,  Pugh  of  Ala 
bama,  Garnet,  and  Bocock.  It  developed  all  the  graces  of  eloquence.  Fair 
women  from  the  galleries,  warm  with  Southern  blood,  gave  applause  more 
precious  than  coronets  of  gold  and  jewels  to  the  oratory  of  their  impassioned 
champions.  As  one  by  one  the  states  became  unrepresented,  not  a  word 
was  heard,  except,  perhaps,  in  debate,  of  the  abstract  right  to  secede.  There 
seemed  to  be  a  tacit  acknowledgment  that  secession  at  present  was  the 
best  course.  No  attempt  was  made  to  arrest  any  one.  Prominent  Repub 
licans  like  Lieutenant-Governor  Stanton,  of  Ohio, —  not  to  mention  his  name 
sake,  the  Secretary  of  War, — Mr.  Greeley,  and  Mr.  Chase,  abetted  the  move- 
,  ment  of  secession  by  opposing  any  constraint  upon  the  departing  sisters. 
These  facts,  forerunners  of  the  mighty  conflict,  seem  now  inexplicable  to 
many  persons,  because  it  is  forgotten  that  from  December,  1860,  until 
March,  1861,  there  was  hope  of  reconciliation.  Douglas  and  Crittenden 
were  still  sanguine  when  they  telegraphed  to  Georgia  that  the  rights  of  the 
South  and  of  every  state  and  section  would  be  protected  in  the  Union. 

The  first  efforts  at  compromise  were  by  no  means  confined  to  the  Demo 
cratic  Senators  and  members.  Governor  Corwin,  Charles  Francis  Adams, 
Edward  Joy  Morris,  and  others  in  the  House  ;  Senators  Cameron,  Baker, 
Dixon,  Foster,  Collamer,  and  others  in  the  Seriate,  were,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  session,  and  for  some  time  afterwards,  regarded  as  not  indifferent  to  a 


CRITTENDEN'S  PEACE  EFFORTS.  65 

compromise  which  would  at  least  retain  the  border  states,  if  it  did  not  stop 
the  movement  of  the  Gulf  States.  The  most  experienced  and  able  Southern 
men  believed  that  the  step  they  were  about  to  take  would  be  bloodless  ; 
that  their  array  in  strength  and  mien  of  resistance  would  prevent  coercion 
by  arms.  Some  of  them  looked  upon  secession  as  a  mere  temporary  alien 
ation.  Even  so  late  as  the  secession  of  Texas,  Judge  Reagan,  one  of  its 
Representatives,  after  he  had  left  his  seat  in  Congress,  took  pains  to  inform 
the  author  that  he  thought  the  South  would  be  out  only  for  a  season.  When 
the  excitement  subsided,  and  especially  if  any  guarantees  were  given  for  the 
protection  of  their  rights,  he  believed  the  states  would  return.  In  this,  how 
signally  ability  and  experience  failed  to  discern  the  future  !  Mankind  gener 
ally  reckon  the  greatness  of  men  by  success.  If  this  be  the  touchstone,  the 
vaunted  statesmanship  of  the  South  vanishes.  But  what  a  company  of  con 
spicuous  men  answered  to  the  roll-call  on  the  6th  of  December,  1860,  in  the 
Thirty-sixth  Congress. 

At  the  head  of  the  Senate  stands  John  C.  Breckenridge,  offering  his 
name,  so  proudly  connected  with  the  history  of  Kentucky,  to  the  task  of  dis 
memberment.  He  was  among  the  last  to  leave  his  home  to  take  the  sword 
for  the  South.  He  was,  after  the  war,  a  fugitive  upon  English  soil,  pleading 
with  his  stricken  confederates  to  do  the  best  by  submission  to  Federal  rule. 
His  health  had  been  impaired  by  his  exertions  in  the  field.  The  writer  saw 
him  sometime  before  his  decease.  He  was  sojourning  at  the  Thousand  Isles, 
in  New-York.  His  spirit  was  peaceful,  calm,  and  exalted, —  fit  companion 
of  a  form  upon  which  God  had  set  His  seal.  He  lives  not  only  in  the  spirit 
of  those  whose  admiration  he  engrossed,  but  in  his  sons,  one  of  whom  is  in 
the  present  Congress  from  Arkansas. 

Another  son  of  that  great  commonwealth  is  there,  John  J.  Crittenden. 
How  nobly  he  stands  for  the  Union !  Mr.  Crittenden  was  not  demonstra 
tive,  unless,  perhaps,  among  intimate  friends  or  in  the  family  circle.  He 
was  a  man  of  great  simplicity  of  character  and  nobility  of  soul.  He  had 
vast  experience  in  public  affairs.  He  possessed  the  integrity  and  fervor  of  his 
Welsh  and  Huguenot  descent.  He,  of  all  the  men  of  his  day,  had  the  best 
right  to  be  a  Confederate.  He  was  born  in  the  old  Confederacy,  seven  days 
before  the  Constitution  of  this  country  was  adopted  in  general  convention. 
He  was  a  sound  scholar.  His  eloquence  was  Ciceronian.  His  legal  intel 
lect  was  profound.  His  patriotism  was  boundless  and  impulsive.  In  1811 
and  1812,  when  he  was  a  member  of  the  Kentucky  Legislature,  he  received 
martial  honor  from  Governor  Shelby,  who  had  no  toleration  for  Great  Britain. 
Young  Crittenden  was  his  aid-de-camp  in  the  war  of  1812-' 14.  He  took 
part  in  the  battle  of  the  Thames.  From  that  time  onward  he  must  be  judged 
as  a  Kentuckian  who  subordinated  the  most  intense  state  pride  to  an  un 
quenchable  love  of  the  whole  Union.  He  did  not  appear  in  any  Federal 
relation  until  he  was  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  in  1817.  More  or 


66  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

less  associated  with  such  men  as  Webster  and  Clay,  and  all  the  public  met* 
connected  with  the  first  half  century  of  the  country,  his  is  a  history  that  be 
longs  to  the  conservative  element.  But  never,  until  sectionalism  raised  its 
front  in  warlike  menace,  did  his  great  abilities  shine  forth  with  their  full 
lustre  of  rhetoric  and  fire  of  will. 

In  the  Senate  of  i86o-'6i,  Mr.  Crittenden  gave  voice  to  the  Union  sen 
timent  of  the  country.  He  not  only  shared  the  sentiments  of  such  statesmen* 
as  John  A.  Dix,  Edward  Everett,  Elisha  Whittlesey,  Robert  C.  Winthrop, 
and  others,  but  he  represented  all  those  patriotic  men  who  united  to  adopt 
the  Crittenden  compromise  on  the  slavery  question.  These  resolutions  were 
in  the  form  of  a  series  of  constitutional  amendments.  They  were  inspired 
by  the  alarming  character  of  the  controversy  between  the  sections.  They 
proposed  the  restoration  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  the  extension  of 
the  compromise  line  throughout  the  territories  of  the  United  States  to  the 
eastern  border  of  California.  Slavery  was  to  be  recognized  in  all  the  terri 
tories  south  of  that  line,  and  to  be  prohibited  in  all  territories  north  of  it.. 
When  territories  north  or  south  of  the  line  should  be  formed  into  states,, 
they  should  then  be  at  liberty  to  exclude  or  admit  slavery  as  they  pleased.. 
In  either  case,  there  would  be  no  objection  to  their  admission  to  the  Union- 
This  was  the  mode  proposed  by  the  Crittenden  compromise,  by  which  to  set 
tle  the  great  controversy.  Incidentally,  he  proposed  to  amend  the  Constitu 
tion  so  as  to  declare  that  Congress  should  have  no  power  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia  while  slavery  existed  in  Maryland  and  Virginia. 
And,  inasmuch  as  the  fugitive-slave  law  was  constitutional,  he  desired  a 
declaration  for  its  faithful  execution.  He  proposed  amendments  to  that  end. 
They  seem  trifling  now.  They  had  reference  to  the  fees  of  the  Circuit 
Court  commissioners,  and  to  the  posse  comitatus  in  cases  of  resistance  to 
the  United  States  marshals  in  making  arrests  under  that  law.  He  also  in 
tended,  if  possible,  to  make  the  Constitution  unalterable  in  certain  matters. 
This,  in  a  country  subject  to  the  laws  of  progress,  was  in  flagrant  violation 
of  that  which  was  an  irrevocable  law  of  advancement !  To  this  inconsist 
ency  the  love  of  the  Union  led  that  best  of  patriots.  This  shows  how 
earnest  were  the  men  who  sought  to  avoid  the  u  Irrepressible  Conflict." 

In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  on  the  i8th  of  December,  1860,  Mr. 
Crittenden  spoke  to  these  propositions.  He  regarded  the  Constitution  as  the 
very  essence  of  life  to  the  Union.  He  lifted  himself  to  the  great  occasion  in 
a  spirit  of  conciliation.  He  did  not  stop  to  picture  the  direful  consequences, 
of  a  failure  to  settle  the  question  by  a  division  upon  the  line  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  We  had  lived  prosperously  and  peacefully  upon  that  line. 
Any  sacrifice  which  could  be  made,  North  or  South,  to  maintain  that  con 
dition,  he  regarded  glorious  as  well  as  just.  The  Union  was  permanent.  It 
had  been  necessary  after  the  Revolution  to  yield  many  prejudices,  and  much 
state  policy,  in  order  to  secure  independence  with  Union.  He  recognized 


CRITTENDEN'S  APPEAL  TO  THE  SOUTH.  67 

the  hand  of  Providence  in  helping  our  ancestors  in  that  trying  era.  He 
quoted  from  Washington,  who  said:  "  But  for  Providence,  we  could  not 
have  accomplished  this  thing."  He  spoke  as  if  the  muse  of  history  were 
listening  to  him.  The  writer  well  remembers  that  speech,  and  the  excessive 
emotion  which  it  produced.  The  peroration  still  rings  as  a  part  of  the 
memory  of  that  critical  time  : 

u  Sir,  I  wish  to  God  it  was  in  my  power  to  preserve  this  Union  by  recog 
nizing  and  agreeing  to  give  up  every  conscientious  and  other  opinion. 
[Then,  turning  to  the  Senators  from  the  South.]  Are  you  bent  on  revolu 
tion,  bent  on  disunion?  God  forbid  it !  I  cannot  believe  that  such  madness 
possesses  the  American  people.  I  can  speak  with  confidence  only  of  my 
own  state.  Old  Kentucky  will  be  satisfied  with  it.  She  will  stand  by  the 
Union  and  die  by  the  Union,  if  this  satisfaction  be  given  !  Nothing  shall 
seduce  her.  The  clamor  of  no  revolution,  the  seductions  or  temptations  of 
no  revolution,  will  tempt  her  to  move  one  step.  Disunion  and  separation 
would  destroy  our  greatness.  Once  disunited,  we  are  no  longer  great.  The 
nations  of  the  earth,  who  have  looked  upon  you  as  a  formidable  power  rising 
to  untold  and  immeasurable  greatness  in  the  future,  will  scoff  at  you.  Your 
flag,  that  now  claims  the  respect  of  the  world  —  what  will  become  of  it?  It 
is  gone,  and  with  it  the  protection  of  American  citizens  and  property,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  national  honor  which  it  displayed  to  all  the  world.  The  pro 
tection  of  your  rights,  the  protection  of  property  abroad  is  gone  with  the 
flag,  and  we  are  here  to  conjure  and  contrive  different  flags  for  our  different 
republics,  according  to  the  feverish  fancies  of  revolutionary  patriots.  No, 
sir  ;  I  want  to  follow  no  such  flag.  I  do  not  despair  of  the  republic.  I  can 
not  despond.  I  cannot  but  believe  that  we  will  find  some  means  of  recon 
ciling  and  adjusting  the  rights  of  all  parties  by  concession,  if  necessary,  so 
as  to  preserve  and  give  more  stability  to  the  country  and  to  these  institu 
tions." 

The  failure  of  the  compromise  measures  is  well  known.  In  his  fareweli 
address  to  the  Senate  in  March,  1861,  Mr.  Crittenden  said  with  genuine 
humility,  that  he  had  not  risen  with  any  vain  ambition  or  purpose  to  play 
the  orator.  He  seemed  to  feel  that  we  were  a  failing  state,  and  that  no  com 
promise  would  be  acceptable.  Scarcely  ever  has  there  been  such  an  appeal  as- 
he  then  made  to  history,  to  the  present  interests,  and  the  future  prosperity  and 
glory 'of  the  country.  He  returned  to  Kentucky,  but  not  to  retire  to  the  ease- 
of  his  home.  He  came  to  the  next  Congress  in  the  first  years  of  the  war  — 
that  in  which  the  writer  served  with  him.  In  July,  at  the  called  session  of 
1861,  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  his  greatest  competitor,  died.  John  J.  Crittenden 
was  the  first  man  to  pronounce  his  eulogy.  The  writer,  in  following, —  and 
feeling  that  there  was  but  one  left  of  all  the  great  men  of  old  who  had  been 
with  Douglas  in  the  Senate, —  said  : 

is  left  to  take  the  place  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas?    Alas,  he  has  no 


/ 


68  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

successor !  His  eclipse  is  painfully  palpable,  since  it  makes  more  obscure 
the  path  by  which  our  alienated  brethren  may  return.  Many  Union  men, 
friends  of  Douglas,  in  the  South  heard  of  his  death  as  the  death-knell  of 
their  hope.  Who  can  take  his  place?  The  great  men  of  1850  who  were 
his  mates  in  the  Senate  are  gone,  we  trust,  to  that  better  union  above,  where 
there  are  no  distracting  counsels, —  all  —  all  gone  !  All  ?  No,  thank  Heaven  ! 
Kentucky  still  spares  to  us  one  of  kindred  patriotism,  fashioned  in  the  better 
mould  of  an  earlier  day,  the  distinguished  statesman  who  has  just  spoken, 
Mr.  Crittenden,  whose  praise  of  Douglas,  living,  I  love  to  quote,  and  whose 
praise  of  Douglas,  dead,  to  which  we  have  just  listened,  laudari  a  viro 
laudato,  is  praise  indeed.  Crittenden  still  stands  here,  lifting  on  high  his 
whitened  head,  like  a  pharos  in  the  sea,  to  guide  our  storm-tossed  and 
shattered  vessel  to  its  haven  of  rest.  His  feet  tread  closely  upon  the  retreating 
steps  of  our  statesman  West.  In  the  order  of  nature  we  cannot  have  him 
long.  Already  his  hand  is  outstretched  into  the  other  world  to  grasp  the 
hand  of  Douglas  !  While  he  is  spared  to  us  let  us  heed  his  warning  ;  let  us 
learn  from  his  lips  the  lessons  of  moderation  and  loyalty  of  the  elder  days, 
and  do  our  best,  and  do  it  nobly  and  fearlessly,  for  our  beloved  Republic." 
Too  real,  alas  !  was  this  shadow  of  the  coming  events.  Worn  out  by  the 
.arduous  labors  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress,  the  great  Crittenden  went 
home  to  his  well-beloved  state,  never  to  return.  He  died  in  July,  1863, — 
this  great  man  died,  while  the  shock  of  embattled  armies  was  rocking  the 
foundations  of  the  Union.  Who  can  tell  how  much  of  its  strength  in  that 
day  was  due  to  John  J.  Crittenden? 

In  that  Congress,  foremost  in  influence  for  peace  or  war,  for  Union  or 
Disunion,  is  Jefferson  Davis  ;  how  then  unlike  that  Davis  who  in  Maine  but 
a  few  years  ago,  had  spoken  burning  words  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union. 
He  had  fought  gallantly  in  Mexico  for  its  extension  and  honor.  Whatever 
of  prejudice  his  name  may  have  since  aroused  has  been  incident  to  recalling 
the  memories  of  a  beaten  cause.  At  that  Congress  he  was  far  more  poten 
tial  in  directing  the  fateful  genius  of  Southern  statesmanship  than  any  other 
man  in  the  Senate.  His  own  memoirs  have  been  published.  There  his  char 
acter  is  analyzed  and  his  motives  questioned  with  pitiless  and  torturing  inqui 
sition  ;  still  the  great  body  of  his  countrymen  South  will  cherish  his  memory, 
despite  all  adverse  criticism.  Whether  he  ever  renounced  his  secession  doc 
trines,  while  acting  as  the  Chieftain  of  the  Confederacy,  has  not  been  proven. 
It  has  been  surmised  and  inferred.  The  same  presiding  care  which  shielded 
him  from  a  trial  for  treason,  and  gave  him  peaceful  retiracy  in  a  southern 
home,  seems  still  to  hover  over  his  old  age.  Remembering  his  personal 
courtesy,  his  urbane  and  dignified  manners,  his  silvery  oratory,  his  undaunted 
courage  as  a  soldier  and  honesty  as  a  man,  the  historian  of  this  eventful 
epoch  —  in  which  madness  ruled  in  the  most  sedate  counsels  —  cannot  fail  to 
recall  much  to  the  credit  of  this  leader  of  the  Southern  people.  He  may 


JEFFERSON  DAVIS  — NOT  FORWARD  FOR  SECESSION.  69 

not  have  exercised  the  wisdom  of  some  who  acquiesced  promptly  and  grace 
fully  in  the  inevitable.  Yet  with  many  this  trait  of  enduring  consistency  is 
a  virtue.  But  it  must  be  said  that  he  was  not  forward  in  secession.  His 
state  was  not  among  the  foremost  to  secede.  She  waited  until  the  9th  of 
January,  1861,  before  passing  her  ordinance,  and  her  Senators  lingered  until 
the  2ist  before  they  withdrew.  It  is  generally  credited  among  those  who 
were  familiar  with  Mr.  Davis'  inclinations,  that,  even  after  the  ordinance 
passed,  he  was  anxious  to  remain.  There  is  indubitable  evidence  that  while 
in  the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  he  was  willing  to  accept  the  compromise  of 
Mr.  Crittenden,  and  recede  from  secession. —  This  Committee  and  a  House 
Committee  of  Thirty-three  members  were  then  considering  "  the  state  of  the 
Union." — The  compromise  failed;  because,  as  Senator  Hale  said,  on  the 
1 8th  of  December,  1860,  the  day  it  was  introduced,  it  was  determined  that 
the  controversy  should  not  be  settled  in  Congress.  When  it  failed,  the  hero 
of  Buena  Vista  became  the  Confederate  leader.  Much  as  he  is  underrated 
by  some  Southern  men  who  opposed  him  during  the  war,  he  was  fitted  to 
be  the  leader  of  just  such  a  revolt.  Every  revolution  has  a  fabulous  or 
actual  hero  conformable  to  the  local  situation,  manners,  and  character  of 
the  people  who  rise.  To  a  rustic  people  like  the  Swiss,  William  Tell, 
with  his  cross-bow  and  the  apple  ;  to  an  aspiring  race  like  the  Americans, 
Washington,  with  his  sword  and  the  law,  are,  as  Lamartine  once  said,  the 
symbols  standing  erect  at  the  cradles  of  these  two  distinct  Liberties  !  Jeffer 
son  Davis,  haughty,  self-willed,  and  persistent,  full  of  martial  ardor  and  de 
fiant  eloquence,  wras  the  symbol,  both  in  his  character  and  in  his  situation, 
of  the  proud,  impulsive,  but  suppressed  ardors  and  hopes  of  the  Southern 
mind.  His  colleague  in  the  Senate,  Albert  G.  Brown,  was  still  more  re 
luctant  to  sever  his  connection.  He  was,  before  the  Charleston  Convention, 
if  not  openly,  at  least  covertly  a  co-worker  with  Douglas  and  others  in 
striving  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the  Democratic  party  and  the  country. 
Governor  Brown  was  a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  He  was  out 
spoken  in  his  criticism  of  the  conduct  of  the  Confederate  authorities.  He 
had  not  much  heart  or  faith  in  the  secession  movement.  He  was  over 
shadowed  as  a  Senator  by  Mr.  Davis ;  but  he  was  far  more  approachable, 
in  his  relations  towards  other  members.  Time  has  mellowed  many  of  the 
men  who  then,  to  an  angry  North,  seemed  so  intensely  vindictive.  Governor 
Brown,  since  the  war,  frequently  acted  with  those  who  sought  reconciliation, 
and  sometimes  adversely  to  his  own  party. 

But  by  far  the  most  truculent  Senator  from  the  South  was  Louis  T.  Wig- 
fall,  of  Texas.  He  was  a  man  of  scarred  face  and  fierce  aspect,  but  with  rare 
gifts  of  oratory.  He  was  bitter  at  times,  as  well  as  classical,  in  his  denuncia 
tions.  Yet  much  of  his  strong  talk  and  eccentric  conduct  was  more  than 
compensated  for  by  great  and  generous  qualities  of  heart.  Many  years  after 
the  war  he  settled  in  Baltimore,  but  he  did  not  long  survive  his  removal 


7O  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

north.  Next  to  him  in  truculency,  though  not  in  sociality,  was  Alfred 
Iverson,  of  Georgia.  He  was  outspoken  and  bold  for  the  sudden  disrup 
tion  of  the  Union.  Perhaps  no  other  Senator  would  have  used  such  sig 
nificant  language  as  he  did  in  the  fierce  debate  which  took  place  on  Dec.  3, 
1860.  He  charged  that  the  secession  of  Texas  was  clogged  by  the  governor 
of  that  state  —  Houston  —  and  said,  with  impetuous  and  vindictive  utter 
ance,  that  if  that  official  did  not  yield  to  public  sentiment,  "  some  Texan 
Brutus  will  arise  to  rid  his  country  of  the  hoary-headed  incubus."  Other 
Senators  were  truculent ;  but  most  of  those  from  the  South  were  sad  at 
the  terrible  consequences  of  separation.  Not  so  Senator  Iverson.  He 
echoed  the  speech  of  the  Texan  Senator,  Wigfall :  "Seize  the  forts  and 
cry,  'To  your  tents,  O  Israel.'"  The  colleague  of  the  latter,  Robert 
Toombs,  was  far  more  amenable  to  reason  than  his  rough  manner  and 
boisterous  logic  indicated.  He  was  a  man  of  commanding  person,  re 
minding  one  of  Mirabeau.  Bating  his  broad  Africanese  dialect,  he  was 
fiercely  eloquent  in  the  epigrammatic  force  of  his  expression.  The  Vir 
ginia  Senators  ranked  among  the  foremost  in  the  movement.  Much  was 
expected  from  the  moderation  of  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter,  but  he  did  little 
to  stay  the  revolution.  Little  was  expected  of  James  M.  Mason,  and  he 
did  less.  The  former  was  a  calm,  phlegmatic  reasoner ;  the  latter  had  a 
defiant  and  autocratic  demeanor,  that  conciliated  no  one.  Both  were 
imbued  with  the  ideas  of  the  ultra  Calhoun  school.  Louisiana  was  repre 
sented  in  the  Senate  by  John  Slidell  and  Judah  P.  Benjamin.  Mr.  Slidell 
was  a  man  of  social  prominence  and  wealth.  He  was  as  cunning  in  his 
methods  as  he  was  inveterate  in  his  prejudices.  He  combined  the  fox  with 
some  other  strange  elements.  The  writer  heard  his  savage  and  sneering 
threat  to  destroy  the  commerce  of  the  North  by  privateers.  As  he  delivered 
it,  his  manner  was  that  of  Mephistopheles,  in  one  of  his  humors  over  some 
choice  anticipated  deviltry.  But  who  shall  picture  the  bland,  plausible,  and 
silver-tongued  Judah  P.  Benjamin?  His  farewell  speech  was  as  full  of 
historic  reference  as  of  musical  and  regretful  cadences.  As  he  bade  adieu 
to  the  old  Union,  he  drew  from  the  spectators  many  plaudits  for  his  rhetoric 
which  he  could  not  evoke  for  his  logic.  Next  to  him  in  the  suavity  of  his 
manner,  if  not  in  the  cogency  of  his  speech,  was  Clement  C.  Clay,  of  Ala 
bama.  He  voluntarily  surrendered  after  the  war,  and  is  now  dead.  He  had 
a  graceful  bearing;  and  although  never  very  hale  in  health,  was  ever  ready 
to  assume  his  role  in  the  daring  drama.  The  other  Senator  from  Alabama, 
Benjamin  Fitzpatrick,  was  a  model  of  senatorial  frankness.  His  name  is 
seldom  mentioned  since  the  war.  He  was  nominated  in  1860  on  the  ticket 
with  Douglas  at  Baltimore.  But  for  the  incessant  importunity,  if  not  threats, 
of  Southern  men  who  thronged  his  room  to  shake  his  determination,  he 
would  have  stood  by  the  Northern  Democracy  in  its  struggle. 

The  other  Senators  from  the  South  did  not  then  play  very  prominent 


ANDREW  JOHNSON  FOR  UNION.  71 

parts  on  the  congressional  stage.  Thomas  L.  Clingman,  of  North  Carolina, 
was  expected  to  fight  the  Union  battle,  but  he  failed  at  the  critical  time.  He 
had  large  experience  in  congressional  life,  but,  just  elevated  to  the  Senate, 
he  rather  pursued  what  he  believed  was  the  popular  doctrine.  The  Sena 
tors  from  Delaware,  the  elder  Bayard  and  Willard  Saulsbury,  were  able 
men.  The  former  was  a  logical  thinker,  accomplished  in  constitutional 
law.  He  was  a  believer  in  the  unforced  association  of  the  states.  He  retired 
from  his  place  disgusted  with  that  public  opinion  which  would  not  allow  free 
speech  as  a  means  to  restrain  usurpation,  and  conclude  the  war.  He  was  suc 
ceeded  by  his  son,  than  whom  no  abler  Senator  has  appeared  to  contend  for 
public  or  personal  honesty  and  liberty.  The  Senators  from  South  Carolina 
did  not  appear  at  the  last  session  of  that  Congress.  Although  that  state  did 
not  pass  her  ordinance  until  the  lyth  of  December,  her  Senators  resigned  on 
the  preceding  loth.  Alfred  O.  P.  Nicholson,  Senator  from  Tennessee,  was  no 
speaker ;  he  did  not  make  his  mark  ;  he  had  been,  however,  a  successful  ed 
itor.  The  other  Senator,  Andrew  Johnson,  made  his  mark.  Although  he 
had  fought  the  battle  in  Tennessee  for  Breckenridge  against  both  Bell  and 
Douglas,  he  came  to  the  closing  session  as  if  he  were  novus  homo.  He  had 
great  will  and  tenacity  of  purpose  ;  his  efforts  were  vigorous  and  effective  in 
repelling,  from  a  Southern  standpoint,  the  aggressive  debate  of  the  secession 
ists  of  the  Senate.  His  elocution  was  more  forcible  than  fine  —  more  discur 
sive  than  elegant.  He  hammered  away  with  stalwart  strength  upon  his 
thought,  until  he  brought  it  into  shape.  He  rarely  failed  to  produce  the  im 
pression  he  intended.  It  was  seen,  then,  that  he  was  destined  to  act  a  great 
part  in  the  future.  Douglas  frequently  expressed  his  regret  that  Mr.  John 
son  had  not  made  his  blows  tell  earlier  in  the  hot  conflict  of  1860,  when 
Crittenden  and  himself  were  championing  the  interests  of  all  sections,  and 
striving  to  avert  in  time  the  calamities  which  were  pressed  by  extremists, 
North  and  South.  The  Senators  from  Maryland,  as  from  Kentucky,  like 
their  states,  occupied  middle  ground,  and  were  ever  ready  and  eager  to  me 
diate.  The  same  cannot  be  said  for  Arkansas.  One  of  her  Senators,  Mr. 
Sebastian,  was  reluctant  to  follow  South  Carolina.  He  did  not  follow  his 
own  state,  yet  he  would  not  go  against  her.  He  stayed  at  home  quietly  dur 
ing  the  war.  He  was  expelled  from  the  Senate.  He  died  in  1865.  The 
expulsion  was  revoked,  and  his  full  salary  up  to  that  time  was  paid  to  his 
family.  The  other  Senator  from  Arkansas,  Mr.  Johnson,  was  nothing  loath 
to  secede.  He  offered  himself,  after  the  war,  to  the  authorities,  in  a  char 
acteristic  letter,  frank  and  manly.  Of  the  Missouri  Senators,  Mr.  Polk  went 
South,  where  his  friends  did  not  expect  him  to  go ;  and  Mr.  Green,  unex 
pectedly,  remained  North  in  the  seclusion  of  private  life.  The  former  had 
been  governor  of  his  state,  but  was  not  otherwise  greatly  distinguished.  The 
latter  was  a  worthy  foeman  of  Douglas  in  the  fierce  struggle  on  the  Lecomp- 
ton  question. 


72  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Of  the  Northern  Senators  who  were  supposed  to  be  most  nearly  allied 
with  the  South,  were  William  M.  Gwin,  of  California,  Joseph  Lane,  of 
Oregon,  and  Jesse  D.  Bright,  of  Indiana.  The  Senators  from  Florida  were 
never  regarded,  however  they  seemed,  as  favorable  to  the  secession  move 
ment  ;  though  the  Representative  from  Florida,  George  S.  Hawkins,  was 
the  first  to  urge  the  withdrawal  of  his  state  as  a  reason  for  his  indifference 
to  compromise,  and  his  refusal  to  serve  on  the  committee.  Stephen  R. 
Mallory  and  David  L.  Yulee  were  later  somewhat  conspicuous  in  the  Con 
federate  movement ;  but  neither  of  them  exerted  any  considerable  influence 
at  Washington  in  the  direction  of  disunion  during  the  winter  of  i86o-'6i. 

The  Republican  Senators  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress  who  were  most 
noted  in  the  parliamentary  conflict,  were  Hamlin,  Fessenden,  Hale,  Clark, 
Collamcr,  Wilson,  Sumner,  Chandler,  Seward,  Cameron,  Wade,  Trumbull, 
Doolittle,  and  Baker  —  a  galaxy  of  ability.  Against  these,  as  against  the 
other  extremists,  stood  Douglas,  Crittenden,  Johnson,  Pugh,  Latham,  Fitch, 
Thompson,  Rice,  and  Powell.  How  these  temperate  tribunes  labored  to 
save  the  Nation,  only  those  present  at  their  conferences  know.  The  author 
was  often  surprised  at  the  speeches  of  Douglas  and  Pugh  especially,  de 
signed  to  mitigate  the  effect  of  personal  liberty  bills,  to  nullify  the  fugitive- 
slave  law,  and  prevent  other  infractions  of  the  Constitution.  They  sought 
to  remove  from  the  Southern  mind  the  hatred  of  the  North  thus  engendered. 
Few  in  number,  these  men  did  all  that  they  could  for  peace,  even  to  the  last 
Sabbath  evening  before  the  adjournment,  when  Mr.  Crittenden  hushed  the 
Senate  by  the  glorious  beauty  of  his  last  earnest,  though  ineffectual  appeal 
for  conciliation. 

In  the  House,  the  elements  of  disunion  might  be  discerned  like  geological 
strata  in  sections  and  states.  Maryland  furnished  no  member  who  was  a 
secessionist  per  se ;  although  of  the  delegation  Messrs.  Kunkel  and  Hughes 
seemed  to  be  most  sympathetic  with  the  South.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
Kentucky ;  but  afterwards  Burnett  and  Symmes  became  confederate  Sena 
tors.  They  were  both  eager  for  compromise  during  the  winter  of  1860, 
and  Burnett  even  returned  to  the  next  Congress  in  1861.  He  had  one  dis 
tinguished  mark  of  attention  after  the  war.  He  was  placed  under  bonds  for 
treason.  Virginia  had  Garnett,  De  Jarnette,  and  Edmundson.  These  men 
were  disposed  toward  a  Southern  Confederacy.  Bocock,  Smith,  Jenkins, 
Leake,  and  others  were  determined  to  go  with  the  state.  They  did  not  labor 
to  foster  compromise.  Pryor  was  at  first  with,  and  at  last  against,  the  Union. 
He  was  not  as  eager  as  he  seemed  for  a  separate  Confederacy.  His  career 
is  known,  with  its  vicissitudes.  The  extremes  he  once  advocated  seem  now 
to  be  as  alien  to  his  cautious  and  heroic  nature,  as  moderation  would  have 
been  in  his  earlier  ardent  years,  when  he  sought  no  exemption  from  any 
attack.  Jenkins  went  out  with  his  state  as  might  have  been  expected.  He 
fought  bravely  and  died  at  the  head  of  his  cavalry.  Rich  in  a  patrimony  of 


SENTIMENT  IN  THE  BORDER  STATES.  73 

splendid  farms  along  the  Ohio  and   Kanawha,  surrounded  by  friends  who. 
elected  him  to  Congress  when  barely  of  constitutional  age,  just  married  to  a 
daughter  of  the  diplomatist  Bowlin,  of  Paraguayan  memory,  and  coming 
from  that  part  of  Virginia  where  secession  was  the  exception,  his  fate  seemed 
to  be  as  unnatural  as  it  is  sad.     Ex-Governor  Smith,  of  Virginia,  was  per 
haps  the  most  remarkable  man  in  the  delegation.     He  was  a  fluent  debaterr 
and  ready  at  repartee.      He  assisted  the  writer,  during  the  war,  while  gov 
ernor  of  the  state,  in  the  special  exchange  of  prisoners.     At  one  time,  the 
Union  prisoners  could  obtain  little  or  no  aid  from  Congress  or  the  Execu 
tive,  and  scarcely  a  vote  on  resolutions  urging  exchange,  till  too  late  to  save 
the  lives  of  thousands.     Prompt  and  generous  aid  came  from  this  inveterate 
insurgent ;  which  President  Lincoln,  when  informed  of  it,  reciprocated  with 
the  remark  that  he  "  would  not  be  outdone  by  '  Extra  Billy'  in  extra  kind 
ness."     The  man  among  Virginians  who  labored  most  for  the  Union,  was 
John  S.  Millson,  of  Norfolk.     Boteler  began  the  same  work  by  moving  for 
a  Committee  of  Thirty-three  ;  but  to  Millson,  more  than  to  any  one,  we  owe 
the  vote  of  Virginia  in  favor  of  the  Union  given  in  February,  1861.     The 
author,  at  his  request,  franked  many  thousands  of  his  unanswerable  speech 
to  Virginians.      It  was  complained,  about  that  time,  that  the  census  had 
been  copied,  to  flood  that  state  with  Millson's  speech,  and  it  was  true.     In 
this  work  no  one  gave  to  General  Millson  more  effective  aid  than  Sherrard 
Clemens,  of  Wheeling,  whose  eloquence  did  great  execution,  whose  zeal 
never  flagged,  and  whose   Unionism  never  wavered.     Perhaps  one  of  the 
saddest  of  the  events  of  those  dies  irce,  was  the  duel,  or  the  result  of  a  duel, 
which  Mr.  Clemens  had  with  Mr.  O.  Jennings  Wise,  of  Virginia.     It  left 
him  shattered  by  a  terrible  wound  ;  but  never  repentant  of  the  stand  he  as 
sumed  at  this  time  when  the  good  men  paused  and  some  of  the  best  went 
awry. 

What  of  the  border  states,  Missouri,  Kentucky,  and,  it  may  be  added, 
Tennessee?  Tennessee  was  led  in  the  House  by  Nelson  and  Maynard,  both 
Union  devotees.  Nelson  appeared  subsequently  as  the  attorney  of  Andrew 
Johnson  on  the  impeachment  case.  He  was  a  lame  man,  of  fine  elocution, 
much  given  to  poetic  imagery,  but  not  of  a  strictly  legal  mind.  Mr.  May 
nard  was  a  tall  man  of  peculiar  mould,  with  long,  dark,  straight  hair,  of 
Indian  features  and  sallow  complexion, —  a  notable  physiognomy.  He  was 
a  man  of  prudence  and  culture,  a  slow  thinker,  but  a  sound  one.  It  seemed 
strange  for  a  Massachusetts  man  to  have  such  a  magnetic  hold  upon  the 
people  of  East  Tennessee.  The  Union  sentiment  of  Missouri  was  cham 
pioned  by  John  S.  Phelps.  He  was  chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means 
Committee  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress.  He  has,  since  the  war,  been  gov 
ernor  of  Missouri.  He  was  a  rapid  speaker  and  thinker,  but  of  good  con 
servative  sense.  The  Union  sentiment  of  Kentucky  was  defended  vigorously 
in  the  House  by  Mr.  Mallory,  a  bon  vivant  of  great  good  humor,  and  much 
facility  in  debate. 


74  THREE  DECADES    OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Excepting  Joshua  Hill,  of  Georgia,  Houston  and  Cobb,  of  Alabama, 
Gilmer  and  Vance,  of  North  Carolina,  Bouligny,  of  Louisiana,  Hamilton, 
of  Texas,  and  such  men  as  Branch,  of  North  Carolina,  Reuben  Davis,  of 
Mississippi,  Boyce,  of  South  Carolina,  Rust,  of  Arkansas,  and  Taylor,  of 
Louisiana,  who  were  distrustful  of  secession  as  the  cure  for  Southern  ills, 
though  not  pronounced  in  their  sentiments,  excepting  these  and  a  few  others 
not  so  conspicuous,  the  whole  array  of  Southern  pluck  and  talent,  led  by 
Miles,  Gartrell,  Pugh  of  Alabama,  Bocock,  Garnett,  Smith,  Pryor,  Craw 
ford,  Curry,  Hindman,  McRae,  Barksdale,  Lamar,  Wright,  and  Keitt  — 
nearly  all,  except  Pugh  and  Smith,  young  men  —  was  thrown  in  favor  of 
precipitate  action,  with  little  attempt  to  compromise.  Even  such  men  as 
Winslow,  Smith,  and  Branch,  of  North  Carolina,  and  Reagan,  of  Texas, 
elected  as  conservatives  against  the  disunion  sentiments  of  their  districts, 
yielded  before  that  chivalric  band.  The  yielding  was  enforced  by  a  tremen 
dous  pressure  brought  to  bear  from  their  homes,  which  was  inspired  by  hopes 
of  independence.  The  wives,  daughters,  and  other  female  connections  of 
Southern  members  were  in  the  galleries  constantly.  They  cheered,  by  their 
presence  and  smiles,  the  fervid  efforts  of  the  secession  orators.  For  im 
petuous  debate,  there  was  Lamar,  of  Mississippi,  scholarly  and  defiant ;  for 
logical  humor,  Governor  McRae,  of  the  same  state,  successor  to  General 
Quitman,  one  of  the  happiest  of  speakers,  an  original  slave-trade  secessionist, 
though  educated  in  Ohio  ;  for  parliamentary  skirmishing,  there  was  Bocock, 
of  Virginia ;  for  vituperative  philippic,  there  was  Roger  A.  Pryor ;  for 
courteous  and  beautiful  elocution,  Alexander  R.  Boteler,  of  Harper's  Ferry  ; 
for  swaggering  bravado,  toned  with  an  elegant  phraseology,  there  was  the 
vain  and  clever  Keitt ;  for  smooth  and  trenchant  dialectics,  there  was  Porcher 
Miles,  of  Charleston,  who  earned  his  place  in  Congress  by  his  care  of  the 
sick  in  the  fever- stricken  city  of  Norfolk  in  1855  ;  for  statesmanlike  and 
vigorous  debate,  there  was  Branch,  of  North  Carolina ;  for  broad  wit  and 
hearty  blows,  there  was  Gilmer,  of  North  Carolina ;  for  subtle  ratiocination 
of  the  Calhoun  pattern,  there  was  Pugh,  of  Alabama,  who  had  all  the  pith, 
without  the  artistic  polish,  of  his  colleague  Curry  ;  fir  offensive  and  vivacious 
readiness,  there  was  Hindman,  of  Arkansas,  who  of  these  leaders  became 
the  most  conspicuous  in  the  war.  Branch,  Ruffin,  Keitt,  Jenkins,  Barks- 
dale,  and  Rust  had  important  commands.  All,  except  the  latter,  met  that 
death  of  which  they  vaunted  so  much,  rather  than  submit  to  the  Federal 
authority.  In  looking  over  this  roll,  one  cannot  but  regret  that  so  much  of 
genius,  energy,  and  goodness  has  been  lost  to  our  land.  Among  the  most 
eloquent  of  this  remarkable  body  was  Nelson,  of  Tennessee  ;  the  most  eccen 
tric  and  indomitable  genius  for  politics,  was  Emerson  Etheridge ;  and  the 
clearest  heads  for  political  economy,  metaphysical  refinement,  and  historic 
research,  were  William  W.  Boyce  and  John  S.  Millson. 

If  we  go  to  the  Republican  side  of  the  House,  we  find  Corwin,  of  Ohio, 


THE  REPUBLICAN  SIDE  OF  THE  HOUSE.  75 

incomparable  for  his  fun,  his  pathos,  and  his  soul-stirring  eloquence  ;  Charles 
Francis  Adams,  with  no  readiness  as  a  speaker,  but  a  profound  thinker ;  Eli 
Thayer,  of  Massachusetts, —  one  of  the  children  of  Brown  University,  with 
all  his  vast  motive  power  occasionally  getting  out  of  order ;  Morrill,  of  Ver 
mont,  whose  skill  in  tariff  calculations  never  flagged  during  the  excitements 
of  the  war  ;  Roscoe  Conkling,  with  rare  gifts  of  ready  and  pure  elocution  ; 
John  Hickman,  of  Pennsylvania,  straightforward  and  dashing,  with  a  scholar's 
taste  hidden  under  the  toga ;  Thaddeus  Stevens,  the  Metternich  of  Repub 
licanism  ;  Galusha  A.  Grow,  quick  in  the  manual  and  saucy  in  bravado 
toward  his  opponents  ;  Benjamin  Stanton,  Sherman,  and  Bingham,  from 
Ohio.  These  last  three  were  men  of  experience  in  legislation.  They  be 
came  leaders  of  a  party  which  never  succumbed  until  1884.  Benjamin 
Stanton  died  just  after  the  war.  John  Sherman  has  made  an  indelible  mark 
upon  our  financial  policies,  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  as  Senator. 
John  A.  Bingham,  gifted  with  English  eloquence,  and  full  of  impulsive 
ardor  for  Anglo-Saxon  liberty,  is  now  spending  the  autumn  of  his  days  as 
Minister  to  Japan.  Schuyler  Colfax  was  there,  but  not  as  presiding  officer 
of  the  House  or  Senate.  The  temptations  of  the  engrossing  and  specula 
tive  life  which  follow  all  great  wars  cast  their  eclipse  over  his  fame.  As 
the  author  pens  these  lines,  the  telegraph  clicks  the  mournful  message  of 
his  demise  in  a  remote  state.  He  arose,  like  Grow,  to  prominence  by 
championing  with  much  fluency  and  energy  the  pietistic  humanitarianism 
of  his  party.  Mr.  Grow  became  the  Speaker  of  the  House  ;  and  was  suc 
ceeded  by  Mr.  Colfax.  Mr.  Grow  still  survives, —  as  a  quiet  Pennsylvanian, 
of  business  habits,  with  more  care  for  railroads  and  coal  than  for  politics  or 
Cushing's  Manual.  His  hair  is  whitening  for  the  harvest,  but  his  impetu 
osity  of  manner  and  energy  of  conviction  are  the  same  as  when  he  had  his 
personal  rencontre  with  Keitt,  of  South  Carolina. 

Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  man  in  that  Congress  was  Owen  Lovejoy, 
of  Illinois.  His  brother  had  been  mobbed  in  Illinois,  in  the  early  days  of 
the  abolition  excitement.  This  and  other  incidents,  fully  inspired  him  with 
a  wild  zealotry  against  slavery,  or  rather  against  slave-holders.  He  never 
feared  to  antagonize  any  of  its  adherents.  He  was,  next  to  Joshua  R.  Gid- 
dings,  the  most  aggressive  and  fully  equipped  of  the  anti-slavery  orators. 
It  seemed  as  if  he  cultivated  an  ignorance  of  parliamentary  law,  in  order  to 
say  the  most  indecorous  things.  He  had  a  rugged  vehemence  which,  if 
not  oratory,  was  taken  for  it  by  those  who  look  more  to  manner  than  sub 
stance.  These,  with  the  affable  Speaker,  Pennington,  made  up  the  phalanx 
upon  which  the  Southern  cohort  hurled  itself  in  debate. 

Let  us  recall  the  scene  which  took  place  at  the  author's  desk  between 
Keitt  and  Grow,  the  preceding  Congress.  It  is  after  the  hour  of  midnight. 
The  passions  of  the  time  are  incarnate  in  that  Congress  and  at  that  hour. 
See  the  fierce  clutch  and  glaring  eye,  and  the  struggle  between  these  heady 


76  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

champions  !  Now,  after  nearly  three  decades,  the  author  sees  trooping  down 
the  aisles  of  memory,  as  then  there  came  trooping  down  the  aisles  of  the 
House,  the  belligerent  members,  with  Washburne,  of  Illinois,  and  Potter, 
of  Wisconsin,  leading  the  one  extreme,  and  Barksdale  and  Lamar,  of  Mis 
sissippi,  leading  the  other;  then  comes  the  m'eUe  —  the  struggle,  the  pale 
face  of  the  Speaker  calling  to  order,  the  sergeant-at-arms  rushing  into  the 
area  before  the  clerk's  desk,  with  the  mace  as  his  symbol  of  authority.  Its 
silver  eagle  moves  up  and  down  on  the  wave  of  passion  and  conflict.  Then 
there  is  a  dead  hush  of  the  hot  heart,  and  the  glare  of  defiance  across  the 
hall !  As  this  scene  is  revivified,  looking  at  it  through  the  red  storm  of  the 
war,  there  is  epitomized  all  that  has  made  that  war  bloody  and  desperate. 

Then,  too,  there  rise  up  the  forms  of  those  who  were  then  accounted 
moderate  and  middle  men,  like  Davis  and  Holman,  of  Indiana,  McClernand 
and  Logan,  of  Illinois,  Mallory  and  Stevenson,  of  Kentucky,  Pendleton 
and  Vallandigham,  of  Ohio,  Florence  and  Montgomery,  of  Pennsylvania, 
Sickles  and  Cochrane,  of  New-York.  They  stand  like  Douglas,  Bigler, 
Latham,  Pugh,  Johnson,  and  Crittenden,  in  the  Senate,  as  a  breakwater 
against  the  contending  tides. 

From  these  scattered  memories  of  this  remarkable  Congress,  the  reader 
may  gather  some  idea  of  its  force  and  energy,  tact  and  eloquence,  passion 
and  prejudice. 

Some  of  the  great  questions  which  arose  were  foreshadowed  in  the  Pres 
ident's  Message  ;  for  instance,  in  regard  to  the  power  to  coerce  a  state.  But 
there  were  other  great  national  topics,  among  the  most  important  of  which 
were  those  concerning  the  acquisition  of  territory,  and  the  government  of 
territories ;  the  effect  of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court ;  the  various 
amendments  of  the  Constitution  to  prohibit  Congress  and  the  people  from 
impairing  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  ;  the  fugitive-slave  law  ;  the  right  of 
transit  in  free  states  of  persons  with  slaves  ;  the  nullifying  acts  of  state  legis 
latures  ;  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  internal  slave  trade ;  changes  by 
constitutional  amendments  in  the  executive  office  and  veto  power  ;  the  restor 
ation  of  the  equilibrium  between  the  slave  and  free  states ;  the  voluntary  di 
vision  of  slave  states  into  two  or  more  states  ;  the  policy  of  allowing  to  slave 
states  alone,  a  vote  on  all  questions  of  slavery,  and  making  the  amendments 
proposed  unamendable  ;  a  grant  to  the  states  of  power  to  appoint  the  Federal 
officers  in  their  midst ;  the  peaceable  withdrawal  of  states  from  the  Union 
and  apportionment  of  the  public  debt ;  dual  Senates  and  dual  Executive  ; 
the  organization  at  once  of  the  remaining  territories  ;  the  foreign  slave  trade  ;, 
the  acquisition  of  foreign  territory  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds ;  questions  as  to 
ordinances  of  secession,  and  their  effect ;  the  exclusion  of  Africans  from  ever 
becoming  citizens  ;  a  constitutional  convention  ; —  these  and  many  other  ques 
tions  were  debated,  and  referred  to  the  committees  of  Thirteen  in  the  Senate 
and  Thirty-three  in  the  House. 


RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  THE  WAR. 


77 


These  questions  lay  at  the  root  of  our  future  agonies  of  war  and  recon 
struction.  They  were  the  result  of  anxious  cogitation  on  the  problems 
which  threatened  to  divide  the  country.  They  remain  upon  the  record  to 
illustrate  the  variety  and  magnitude  of  the  interests  springing  out  of  the  insti 
tution  of  slavery,  and  the  duplex  character  of  our  state  and  Federal  govern 
ments.  They  were,  for  the  last  time,  thrust  into  the  legislative  tribunal  for 
tranquil  solution,  before  the  conflict  in  the  forum  of  reason  should  be  re 
placed  by 

"  the  intestine  shock 

And  furious  close  of  civil  butchery." 

The  public  records  show  what  results  were  reached  by  these  committees, 
or  rather  how  resultless  were  their  labors.  Mr.  Corwin,  representing  a 
majority  of  the  House  committee,  presented  his  resolutions  and  bills.  Mr. 
Adams  declined  to  recommend  even  his  own  propositions,  inasmuch  as  he 
believed  that  the  South  would  accept  nothing  that  he  might  offer.  Wash- 
burne,  of  Wisconsin,  and  Tappan,  of  New  Hampshire,  of  the  same  com 
mittee,  offered  nothing  by  way  of  compromise.  The  conservative  men,  with 
Taylor,  Phelps,  Rust,  Whitely,  Winslow,  Nelson,  Hamilton,  and  others  of 
the  committee,  wished  to  go  further  than  Governor  Corwin.  They  recom 
mended  the  Crittenden  proposition.  The  votes  on  the  Corwin  measures 
were  strangely  incongruous.  The  vote  on  the  Crittenden  proposition  was 
well  defined,  but  it  is  not  so  well  understood. 

From  the  frequency  of  inquiries  since  the  war  as  to  the  vote  on  the  Crit 
tenden  proposition,  the  people  are  even  yet  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the 
responsibility  of  its  failure  belongs  to  the  Republicans.  It  may  well  be 
stated  that  all  other  propositions,  whether  of  the  Peace  Convention,  or  the 
Border  State  project,  or  the  measures  of  the  committees,  were  comparatively 
of  no  moment ;  for  the  Crittenden  proposition  was  the  only  one,  if  any, 
which  could  have  arrested  the  struggle.  It  would  have  received  a  larger 
vote  than  any  other.  It  would  have  had  more  effect  in  moderating  the 
Southern  excitement.  It  has  been  shown  already  that  Davis,  Toombs,  and 
others  of  the  Gulf  States  would  have  accepted  it.  The  author  talked  with 
Mr.  Crittenden  frequently  on  this  point.  Not  only  did  he  confirm  the  pub 
lic  declarations  of  Douglas  and  Pugh,  and  the  speech  of  Toombs  himself,  to 
this  effect,  but  he  said  it  was  so  understood  in  committee.  At  one  time, 
while  the  committee  was  in  session,  Mr.  Crittenden  said:  "Mr.  Toombs, 
will  this  compromise,  as  a  remedy  for  all  wrongs  and  apprehensions,  be 
acceptable  to  you  ?"  Mr.  Toombs  with  great  warmth  replied,  "Not  by 
a  good  deal ;  but  my  state  will  accept  it,  and  I  will  follow  my  state." 

It  is  not  an  open  question,  whether  it  was  wise  then  to  offer  accommoda 
tions.  It  may  not  be  profitable  now  to  ask  whether  the  thousands  of  old  and 
young  men  whose  bodies  were  maimed,  or  whose  bones  are  decaying  under 
the  sod  of  Jthe  South,  and  the  heavy  load  of  public  debt  under  which  the  peo- 


78  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

pie  sweated  and  toiled,  had  compensation  in  an  established  order,  without 
negro  slavery.  Why  discuss  the  long  vexed  but  now  settled  question  as  to 
whether  the  blacks  have  been  bettered  by  their  precipitate  freedom,  passing, 
as  so  many  did,  from  slavery  through  suffering  to  death  or  freedom  ?  There 
is  no  longer  any  debate  out  of  the  reflection  that  the  negroes  might  be  exter 
minated.  Since  the  negroes  are  a  part  of  our  social  order,  it  is  the  part  of 
all  citizens  to  make  them  useful  and  intelligent  factors  in  our  civilization  and 
advancement.  There  is  no  question  left  concerning  them. 

Much  has  transpired  since  that  remarkable  session  of  i86o-'6i,  to  disen 
chant  many  of  their  Utopias,  and  to  reveal  many  an  error  in  the  Federal 
treatment  of  communities  and  states.  With  the  knowledge  of  that  day,  and 
amidst  the  fervors  of  the  hour,  what  is  the  real  question  which  history  would 
regard  as  of  the  first  importance  at  that  time?  It  is  this:  —  Could  not  this 
Union  have  been  made  permanent  by  a  timely  settlement,  instead  of  being 
cemented  by  fraternal  blood  and  military  rule  ?  By  an  equitable  adjustment 
of  the  territory  this  was  possible.  The  territories  had  then  an  area  of  i  ,200,- 
ooo  square  miles.  The  Crittenden  proposition  would  have  given  the  North 
900,000  of  these  square  miles,  and  applied  the  Chicago  doctrines  to  that  area. 
It  would  have  left  the  remaining  fourth,  substantially,  to  be  carved  out  as  free 
or  slave  states,  at  the  option  of  the  people  when  the  territories  were  admitted 
as  states.  This  proposition  the  radicals  denounced.  Notwithstanding  the 
President-elect  was  then  in  a  minority  of  a  million  of  the  popular  vote,  they 
were  determined,  as  Mr.  Chase  wrote  to  Portsmouth,  Ohio,  from  the  Peace 
Convention,  to  use  the  power  while  they  had  it,  and  to  prevent  a  settlement. 
It  has  been  stated,  in  order  to  rid  the  Republicans  of  the  odium  of  not  avert 
ing  the  war  when  that  was  possible,  that  the  Northern  members  tendered  to  the 
South  the  Crittenden  Compromise,  which  the  South  rejected.  This  is  untrue. 
It  was  tendered  by  Southern  Senators  and  Northern  Democrats  to  the  Re 
publicans.  They,  in  conjunction  with  some  half  a  dozen  extremist  Southern 
Senators,  rejected  it.  It  was  voted  upon  but  once  in  the  House,  when  it 
received  So  votes  against  113.  These  eighty  votes  were  exclusively  Democrats 
and  Southern  "  Americans,"  like  Gilmer,  Vance,  and  others.  Mr.  Briggs,  of 
New-York,  was  the  only  one  not  a  Democrat  who  voted  for  it.  He  had 
been  an  old  Whig  and  never  a  Republican.  The  Republican  roll,  beginning 
with  Adams  and  ending  with  Woodruff,  was  a  unit  against  it.  Inter 
mingled  with  them  was  one  Southern  extremist,  General  Hindman,  who 
desired  no  settlement.  There  were  many  Southern  men  who  did  not  vote, 
believing  that  unless  the  Republicans,  who  were  just  acceding  to  power, 
favored  it,  its  adoption  would  be  a  delusion.  The  plan  adopted  by  the 
Republican  Senators  to  defeat  it,  was  by  amendment  and  postponement. 
On  the  I4th  and  I5th  of  January,  1861,  they  cast  all  their  votes  against  its 
being  taken  up  ;  and  on  the  i6th,  when  it  came  up,  Mr.  Clark,  of  New 
Hampshire,  moved  to  strike  it  out  and  insert  something  which  he  knew 


REPUBLICAN  REFUSALS  OF  COMPROMISE.  79 

would  neither  be  successful  nor  acceptable.  The  vote  on  Clark's  amendment 
was  25  to  23  ;  every  "  aye  "  being  a  Republican  vote,  and  every  "  no,"  except 
Kennedy  and  Crittenden  ("  Americans"),  being  a  Democrat  vote.  On  this 
occasion,  six  Southern  Senators,  including  Benjamin  and  Wigfall,  did  not 
vote.  They  could  have  defeated  Mr.  Clark's  motion.  In  reference  to  this 
vote  we  have  the  testimony  of  Andrew  Johnson,  in  a  speech  on  the  expul 
sion  of  Senator  Bright,  Jan.  31,  1862,  to  this  effect: 

"I  sat  right  behind  Mr.  Benjamin,  and  I  am  not  sure  that  my  worthy 
friend  (Mr.  Latham)  was  not  close  by  when  he  refused  to  vote ;  and  I  said 
to  him,  ;  Mr.  Benjamin,  why  do  you  not  vote?  Why  not  save  this  proposi 
tion,  and  see  if  we  cannot  bring  the  country  to  it?'  He  gave  me  rather  an 
abrupt  answer,  and  said  he  would  control  his  own  actions  without  consulting 
me  or  anybody  else.  Said  I :  '  Vote,  and  show  yourself  an  honest  man.'  As 
soon  as  the  vote  was  taken,  he  and  others  telegraphed  South,  '  We  cannot 
get  any  compromise.' " 

Doubtless  the  six  Senators  had  the  same  motive  for  their  reticence  in 
voting  and  readiness  in  telegraphing.  But  their  conduct  did  not  excuse  the 
body  of  the  Republicans.  Now,  since  the  collapse  of  the  Confederacy,  many 
of  them  are  anxious  to  be  excused.  These  are  facts  of  history.  They  are 
not  written  to  justify  or  condemn.  When  the  result  of  the  vote  was  an 
nounced,  universal  gloom  prevailed.  The  people  favored  the  compromise 
Petitions  signed  by  thousands  of  citizens  were  showered  upon  Congress, 
for  the  passage  of  the  compromise.  Had  it  received  a  majority  only,  they 
would  have  rallied  and  sustained  those  who  desired  peace  and  union. 

The  climax  is  reached.  One  more  earnest  appeal  is  made  to  the  Re 
publicans.  Senator  Cameron  answers  it  by  moving  a  reconsideration.  His 
motion  is  called  up  on  the  iSth.  He  votes  against  his  own  motion !  It  is 
carried,  however,  over  the  votes  of  the  Republicans,  although  Wigfall  votes 
with  them.  It  is  again  up  on  the  2d  of  March,  1861.  The  Southern  States 
are  nearly  all  gone  ;  even  then  it  is  lost  by  one  vote  only.  But  on  this  oc 
casion  all  the  Democrats  are  for,  and  all  the  Republicans  against  it.  The 
truth  is,  there  is  nothing  then  but  sneers  and  skepticism  from  the  Republi 
cans  at  any  settlement.  They  break  down  every  proposition.  They  elim 
inate  the  elements  of  conciliation  out  of  the  Peace  Convention  before  it 
assembles.  Senators  Harlan  and  Chandler  are  especially  active  in  preparing 
that  Convention  for  a  failure.  If  every  Southern  man  and  every  Northern 
Democrat  had  voted  for  this  proposition,  it  would  still  require  nine  Re 
publicans  for  the  requisite  two-thirds.  Where  are  they?  Dreaming  with 
Mr.  Seward  of  a  sixty-days'  struggle,  or  arranging  for  the  division  of  the  pa 
tronage  of  Administration  ?  The  only  Southern  Senators  who  seem  to  be 
determined  against  any  settlement  are  Iverson  and  Wigfall. 

No  man  will  challenge  this  review  of  party  positions,  if  he  will  refer  to  the 
Congressional  Globe  (ist  part,  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  p.  270,)  for  the  testi- 


8o  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

mony  of  Douglas  and  Pugh,  and  to  Mr.  Bigler's  Bucks  County  speech,  Sept.  17, 
1863.  The  latter  then  said  :  "  When  the  struggle  was  at  its  height  in  Georgia 
between  Robert  Toombs  for  secession,  and  Alexander  H.  Stephens  against  it, 
had  those  men  in  the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  who  are  now  so  blameless  in 
their  own  estimation,  given  us  their  votes,  or  even  three  of  them,  Stephens 
would  have  defeated  Toombs,  and  secession  would  have  been  prostrated.  I 
heard  Mr.  Toombs  say  to  Mr.  Douglas  that  the  result  in  Georgia  was  staked 
on  the  action  of  the  Committee  of  Thirteen.  If  it  accepted  the  Crittenden 
proposition,  Stephens  would  defeat  him  ;  if  not,  he  would  carry  the  state  out 
by  40,000  majority.  The  three  votes  from  the  Republican  side  would  have 
carried  it  at  any  time  ;  but  union  and  peace  in  the  balance  against  the  Chi 
cago  platform  were  sure  to  be  found  wanting."  Many  facts  were  brought 
to  light  during  the  war,  and  subsequently,  showing  that,  while  President 
Buchanan  was  working  for  the  Peace  Conference,  while  Virginia  had  been 
gained  to  its  side  with  her  ablest  men,  there  were  even  then  in  the  Cabinet 
those  who  not  only  encouraged  revolt,  but  foiled  by  letter  and  speech  the 
efforts  of  the  Unionists  at  Washington  and  Richmond.  Those  who  sought 
to  counteract  the  schemes  of  secession  were  themselves  checkmated  by  ex 
treme  men  of  the  Republican  party.  Whether,  therefore,  the  public  records 
are  consulted  or  the  inquirer  goes  within  the  veil  and  consults  those  who 
know  the  elements  then  at  work  in  the  committees  and  in  social  life,  one 
leading  fact  will  always  stand  stark  and  bold,  namely,  that  with  the  aid  of  a 
handful  of  secessionists  per  se,  the  whole  body  of  the  Republicans  were  — 
as  Andrew  Johnson  described  Senator  Clark,  when  the  latter  defeated  the 
Crittenden  resolution  by  his  amendment  —  "acting  out  their  policy."  In 
the  light  of  subsequent  events,  that  policy  was  developed.  It  was  the  destruc 
tion  of  slavery  at  the  peril  of  war  and  disunion ;  or,  as  Senator  Douglas 
expressed  it,  "a  disruption  of  the  Union,  believing  it  would  draw  after  it,  as 
an  inevitable  consequence,  civil  war,  servile  insurrections,  and  finally  the 
utter  extermination  of  slavery  in  all  the  Southern  States."  Whether  a  great 
war,  with  its  infinite  and  harmful  consequences,  was  the  proper  means  to 
such  an  end,  is  not  for  the  writer,  but  the  reader,  to  determine  for  himself. 
The  general  belief  at  this  time  is,  that  the  war  has  given  us  in  a  new 
order,  full  compensation  for  its  cost  in  means  and  life.  Whether  this  be 
a  correct  estimate  or  not,  the  historians  and  philosophers  of  the  future  can 
better  judge. 

VALLANDIGHAM. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  the  writer  will  indulge  in  a  few  remarks  on  a 
brave  colleague  who  suffered  as  much  for  his  patriotism  and  love  of  liberty 
as  any  member  of  that  Congress.  No  man  has  been  more  thoroughly  mis 
understood  and  abused  than  Clement  L.  Vallandigham,  of  Ohio.  There 
never  was  a  man  in  public  life  who  had  a  greater  devotion  to  the  Constitu 
tion  and  institutions  of  his  country  than  he.  His  motto  was  to  do  right,  to 


VALLANDIGHAM  FOR  THE  UNION.  8 1 

trust  in  God,  in  truth,  and  the  people.  Amid  the  harsh  criticisms  upon  his 
course  in  1863,  he  appealed  to  time  and  right.  Well  might  he  have  said  : 
44  Nobly  hath  the  avenger  answered  me." 

Negrophilistic  fanaticism  produced  and  encouraged  an  intense  hatred 
of  this  statesman  ;  for  his  whole  public  life  was  a  protest  against  the  ex 
tremists  and  a  clear  and  uniform  expression  of  a  true  love  of  country.  He 
warned  against  the  sectionalism  which  brought  on  the  deadly  national  con 
flict.  When  it  came,  he  differed  from  many  in  whom  the  people  had 
reposed  confidence  ;  but  he  stood  by  his  principles,  and  he  held  his  position 
immovably  against  a  terrific  current  of  raving  prejudice.  For  this  he 
was  denounced  as  a  traitor  and  disunionist.  But  the  immense  circle  of 
his  friends  who  observed  his  inflexible  firmness,  even  in  his  last  terrible 
trial,  stood  by  him  to  the  last.  He  was  born  in  New  Lisbon,  Ohio,  July  29, 
1820.  His  father  was  a  Presbyterian  clergyman  from  Virginia.  He  was  de 
scended  from  a  family  which  came  from  the  French  Flanders  of  the  old 
Frisian  stock.  Like  Calhoun  he  was  educated  under  Presbyterian  influences, 
and  had  the  inflexible  character  that  they  developed.  He  began  public  life 
very  early  as  a  teacher,  lawyer,  and  editor.  When  he  was  twenty-five  years 
of  age,  he  was  elected  to  the  Ohio  Legislature.  He  opposed  the  Wilmot 
proviso,  with  tongue  and  pen,  in  the  legislature  and  upon  the  stump.  He 
opposed  those  who  denounced  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  who  declared 
that  the  Union  was  dissolved  thereby.  He  held  that  the  Mexican  War  was 
a  constitutional  war,  that  it  should  be  sustained,  and  that  nothing  but  an 
honorable  peace  should  be  its  end.  The  compromise  measures  of  1850 
found  in  him  a  rare  and  eloquent  defender.  As  a  friend  of  peace  and  con 
cord  and  a  lover  of  the  Union,  he  held  that  every  law  upon  the  statute-book 
of  the  United  States  which  was  constitutional  should  be  vindicated.  Thrice 
he  ran  for  Congress  and  thrice  was  beaten.  At  last,  in  1856,  along  with 
George  H.  Pendleton,  John  A.  Bingham,  Benjamin  Stanton,  and  others 
who  made  a  name  in  the  Thirty-fifth  Congress,  he  was  elected  ;  but  was  not 
admitted  to  his  seat  until  after  a  contest  upon  the  floor  of  the  House.  That 
contest  was  settled  on  the  25th  of  May,  1858.  It  turned  upon  certain  negro 
votes,  but  it  fixed  Vallandigham  as  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  of  our  pub 
lic  men  in  the  national  councils.  Few  will  fail  to  remember  what  was 
known  as  "The  Ohio  Rebellion"  in  1857.  Vallandigham  led  the  Union 
force  in  that  contest.  It  grew  out  of  the  fugitive-slave  act,  in  connection 
with  habeas  corpus,  and  excited  almost  as  much  agitation  in  the  state,  as  if 
war  had  been  flagrant.  In  1859,  the  John  Brown  raid  took  place  in  Vir 
ginia.  Mr.  Vallandigham's  presence  at  Harper's  Ferry  a  few  hours  after 
the  capture  of  Brown,  enabled  him  to  witness  the  first  shedding  of  blood 
between  the  sections.  In  the  campaign  of  1860,  he  rose  to  the  full  height 
of  the  great  argument  for  the  Union.  He  feared  that  the  inevitable  fruit  of 
abolition  sentiment,  which  had  culminated  in  the  Republican  organization, 


82  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

would  be  disunion.  To  the  Democrats  of  Detroit  he  then  said  :  "  Human 
nature  has  been  misread  from  the  time  of  Cain  to  this  day,  if  blood,  blood, 
human  blood,  is  not  the  result." 

It  is  true  that  when  secession  came,  he  was  opposed  to  coercion  and 
favored  compromise.  In  this  course  he  was  a  companion  of  Senator  Pugh 
and  John  J.  Crittenden.  During  the  winter  of  iS6o-'6i,  when  a  committee 
of  one  from  each  state  was  selected  to  consider  the  condition  of  the  country,. 
Mr.  Thomas  Corwin,  of  Ohio,  was  selected  as  the  member  from  that  state. 
When  Judge  Hawkins,  the  elegant  and  sole  representative  of  the  State  of 
Florida,  arose  in  his  seat  and  declined  to  serve  on  that  committee,  the  vexed 
question  became  still  more  vexatious.  It  was  then,  on  the  tenth  day  of 
December  of  the  year  1860,  that  Mr.  Vallandigham  made  one  of  his  stirring 
speeches  in  the  House.  "We  are  all  ready,"  he  exclaimed,  "and,  sir,  all 
in  the  cause  of  our  yet,  thank  God  !  common  country  ;  and  by  no  vote  or  act 
or  speech  of  ours,  here  or  elsewhere,  shall  anything  be  done  to  defile  or  im 
pair  or  overthrow  this,  the  grandest  temple  of  human  liberty  ever  erected  in 
any  age.  But  we  demand  to  worship  at  the  very  foot  of  the  altar,  and  notr 
as  servants  and  inferiors,  at  the  outer  courts  of  the  edifice.  Sir,  we  of  the 
Northwest  have  a  deeper  interest  in  the  preservation  of  this  government  in 
its  present  form  than  any  other  section  of  the  Union.  We  have  an  empire 
equal  in  area  to  the  third  of  all  Europe,  and  we  do  not  mean  to  be  a  depend 
ency  or  a  province  either  of  the  East  or  of  the  South.  A  nation  of  war 
riors  we  may  be  ;  a  tribe  of  shepherds,  never." 

While  Mr.  Vallandigham  held  that  war  was  disunion,  final  and  eternal 
separation,  and  exclaimed  with  Chatham,  "  You  cannot  conquer  America," 
he  was  not  unwilling,  when  he  found  the  South  succumbing  before  the  attacks 
of  the  Union  armies,  to  make  what  he  called  a  New  Departure.  But  before 
that  time,  and  during  the  war,  he  had  offered  peace  resolutions  declaring  the 
object  of  the  war,  holding  that  no  state  could  be  extinguished  by  Federal 
authority,  and  that  to  declare  any  state  extinguished,  or  to  establish  territorial 
governments  or  permanent  military  governments  within  it,  should  deserve  the 
censure  of  the  House  and  the  country.  Mr.  Vallandigham,  together  with 
many  of  the  Democratic  members  of  Congress  of  that  day,  and  even  such  Re 
publican  members  as  Judge  Benjamin  Thomas,  of  Massachusetts,  had  a  pro 
found  reverence  for  the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors.  They  could  not,  in  thought 
or  action,  allow  the  supremacy  of  the  national  government  without  its  own 
sphere,  or  within  the  reserved  rights  of  the  states.  They  held  that  between 
the  national  and  state  powers  there  was  no  necessary  conflict ;  that  each  juris 
diction  was  the  complement  of  the  other ;  and  that  both  were  vital  parts  of 
that  political  system  under  whose  admirable  distribution  and  adjustment  of 
powers  the  people  of  the  United  States  had  enjoyed  for  so  many  years  the 
most  beneficent  government  that  ever  existed.  They  did  not  believe  that 
there  was  any  inherent  defect  or  want  of  wisdom  or  foresight  in  its  founders. 


VALLANDIGHAM  UPHOLDS  THE  CONSTITUTION.  83 

nor  that  we  had  outgrown  its  provisions,  nor  that  it  was  behind  the  age.  If 
trouble  came,  it  would  be  because  the  age  was  not  worthy  of  a  government 
which  had  failed  to  be  appreciated  in  the  spirit  of  wisdom,  prudence,  and 
moderation  in  which  it  was  founded. 

Vallandigham  was  no  champion  of  the  gospel  of  anarchy  or  the  philos 
ophy  of  dissolution.  He  would  stand  by  the  Constitution,  whoever  else 
might  falter.  He  believed  in  the  system  of  many  states  in  one  polity, 
working  in  their  respective  spheres  as  if  the  Divine  hand  had  moulded  ,and 
set  them  in  motion.  For  preaching  this  gospel,  for  asserting  the  right  to 
keep  and  bear  arms  in  a  state  where  war  was  not  flagrant,  for  his  opposition 
to  coercion,  and  for  his  attempt  to  restore  the  Union  through  peace,  the  men 
of  that  time  know  what  happened  to  him  in  1862  and  1863.  From  the  plat 
form  at  Mount  Vernon,  Ohio,  in  the  month  of  May,  1863,  the  writer  and  Mr. 
Vallandigham  addressed  the  people  of  Knox  County,  Ohio.  Certain  mili 
tary  orders  had  been  issued  before  that  time  which  restricted  the  right  of  the 
people  freely  to  discuss  the  condition  of  public  affairs.  In  fact,  confiscation 
had  been  threatened  in  case  of  their  violation.  These  orders  were  then  prop 
erly  denounced  as  military  insolence.  It  was  a  time  when  every  case  at  law 
could  have  been  determined  in  the  open  courts  of  Ohio,  and  every  question 
of  politics,  at  the  ballot-box.  Vallandigham  counseled  no  resistance  to  law, 
but  he  would  meet  and  repel  all  mob  violence  by  force  and  arms  on  the  spot. 
During  the  meeting  at  Mount  Vernon  the  conscription  law  was  discussed,  in 
fact,  mostly  discussed  by  the  writer  of  this  book.  By  some  mistake  the  pro 
vost-marshal,  or  some  other  reporter,  gave  his  words  as  the  words  of  Val 
landigham.  This  was  testified  to  before  the  court  martial  which  convened 
in  Cincinnati  on  the  sixth  day  of  May,  whereat  the  author  was  a  witness  and 
swore  to  the  facts.  The  result  was  that  a  military  commander  arrested  Mr. 
Vallandigham,  at  his  house  in  Dayton,  by  a  strategic  movement,  with  the 
aid  of  150  soldiers.  A  special  train  was  on  hand.  Houses  were  guarded 
near  Vallandigham's  residence  and  along  the  street  to  the  railway  station. 
The  doors  of  his  house  were  broken  open,  his  bed-room  was  entered,  the  pris 
oner  was  captured,  placed  in  the  railway  car,  all  within  thirty  minutes.  He 
was  consigned  to  a  prison.  The  author  was  summoned  as  a  witness  the  next 
day,  and  went  through  the  burning  depot  at  Hamilton  to  Cincinnati.  The 
indignation  of  the  people  was  deep  and  terrible.  From  his  prison,  on  the  5th 
of  May,  1863,  Vallandigham  issued  a  letter  to  the  Democracy  of  Ohio.  He 
declared  that  he  was  in  a  military  Bastile  for  no  other  offense  than  political 
opinions,  and  the  defense  of  the  rights  of  the  people  and  of  constitutional 
liberty.  The  writer  arrived  at  Cincinnati  at  daybreak  on  the  morning  of  the 
6th.  He  was  informed  by  General  Burnside  that  Mr.  Vallandigham  would  not 
he  convicted.  He  was  requested  to  so  advise  Mrs.  Vallandigham,  who  was 
in  great  distress.  But  some  counter  movement  took  place  afterwards.  The 
whole  thing  was  changed.  Vallandigham  was  convicted  by  the  military 
court.  He  refused  to  acknowledge  its  jurisdiction,  but  this  plea  was  treated 


84  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

with  contempt.  He  was  charged  with  publicly  expressing  —  in  violation  of 
General  Order  No.  38,  from  headquarters  of  the  Department  of  Ohio  —  sym 
pathy  for  those  in  arms  against  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  with 
declaring  disloyal  sentiments  and  opinions  for  the  purpose  of  weakening  the 
power  of  the  government  in  its  efforts  to  suppress  an  unlawful  rebellion.  The 
president  of  the  court  had  directed  a  plea  of  not  guilty  to  be  entered,  and  the 
case  was  opened.  With  clear  and  deliberate  speech  and  unexcited  demeanor 
he,  a  private  citizen  of  Ohio,  addressed  the  court  martial.  He  claimed  that 
he  was  arrested  without  due  process  of  law  ;  that  as  he  was  not  either  in  the 
land  or  naval  forces  of  the  United  States,  nor  in  the  militia  in  the  actual  ser 
vice  of  the  United  States,  he  was  not  triable  for  any  cause  by  any  such  tri 
bunal  as  a  court  martial  or  military  commission.  He  insisted  that  if  triable 
at  all,  he  should  be  tried  in  a  civil  court  under  the  Constitution,  on  an  indict 
ment  or  presentment  by  a  grand  jury,  there  to  be  confronted  with  witnesses, 
to  have  compulsory  process,  the  assistance  of  counsel  and  evidence  and  argu 
ment,  according  to  the  common  law  and  the  ways  of  judicial  courts.  An 
attempt  was  made  to  obtain  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  This  failed.  The 
court  reserved  the  application  from  May  12,  when  the  arguments  concluded, 
until  the  i6th,  and  then  refused  it.  Having  been  found  guilty  on  the  i6th  of 
May,  he  was  sentenced  to  close  confinement  as  a  prisoner  at  Fort  Warren, 
Boston  Harbor.  He  remained  in  his  place  of  confinement  at  the  Burnet 
House,  Cincinnati,  for  six  days  longer,  and  then  by  some  whim  of  .tyranny, 
he  was,  on  the  order  of  the  President,  transported  beyond  the  lines.  He  was 
banished  from  his  native  state  for  no  crime,  by  the  compulsion  of  an  arbitrary 
and  tyrannical  power.  The  purpose  of  the  order  by  which  he  was  sent  to  the 
South  was  malicious.  It  was  intended  to  give  party  color  to  calumny.  In 
his  farewell  to  the  people  of  Ohio,  he  said  that  no  order  of  banishment  exe 
cuted  by  superior  force  could  release  him  from  his  obligations  or  deprive  him 
of  his  rights  as  a  citizen  of  Ohio  and  of  the  United  States.  At  noon  on  the 
29th  of  May,  1863,  he  left  his  military  prison  and  embarked  on  a  steamer  for 
the  South.  Wlien  the  boat  reached  Elizabeth,  a  journal  of  that  city  gave  it 
a  salute,  as  it  said,  for  the  heaviest  gun  that  the  Administration  had  ever  put 
on  a  boat.  On  Sunday  evening,  May  24,  he  arrived  at  Murfreesboro,  and 
was  taken  to  the  office  of  the  provost-marshal-general,  where  he  met  General 
Rosecrans  and  other  officers.  He  was  kept  under  guard  until  after  midnight, 
and  then  moved  southward  in  charge  of  a  mounted  escort.  Daylight  found 
him  upon  the  Federal  outpost.  A  flag  of  truce  was  sent  forward.  The 
Confederate  colonel  reluctantly  consented  to  receive  the  exile.  Vallandigham 
was  delivered  to  the  guards,  asking  them  to  mark  his  words  :  "  I  am  a  citizen 
of  the  State  of  Ohio,  of  the  United  States  of  America.  I  am  sent  within 
your  lines  contrary  to  my  will  and  wish.  I  ask  that  you  receive  me  as  your 
prisoner." 

These  facts  reveal  one  of  the  darkest  chapters  connected  with  the  war. 
It  was  a  gross  outrage  of  liberty  in  the  person  of  one  of  the  truest  patriots 


OSTRACISM  OF  VALLANDIGHAM.  85 

of  the  country.  Vallandigham  was  chosen  as  a  candidate  for  governor  of 
Ohio,  on  the  nth  of  June,  1863,  being  still  an  involuntary  exile.  Mean 
while  he  had  run  the  blockade,  passed  around  into  Canada  and  communed 
with  his  friends,  the  author  among  them,  across  the  border.  During  the 
reconstruction  period  Mr.  Vallandigham  gave  most  of  his  time  to  his  pro 
fession.  Still  he  was  meditating  many  new  modes  of  departure  for  the  ben 
efit  and  success  of  his  party  —  departures  from  old  methods  which  had  not 
received  the  approbation  of  the  people. 

On  the  morning  of  June  13,  1871,  while  the  author  was  standing  at  his 
door-steps  in  New-York  City,  he  received  from  the  postman  a  letter.  It  was 
from  his  friend  Vallandigham,  asking  him  to  ponder  over  the  policy  of  his  new 
departure.  There  was  a  postscript  to  the  letter  in  which  he  said  :  "  Am  full 
of  murder  now," — meaning  that  he  was  engaged  in  trying  a  very  important 
murder  case,  in  which  a  Democratic  editor  was  concerned,  and  in  which  his 
personal  feelings  were  intensely  wrought. 

Here  is  the  letter  : 

"  DAYTON,  OHIO,  June  n,  1871. 
Hon.  S.  S.  Cox,  N.  T. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  Yours  received.  All  right,  right  in  time  and  direc 
tion  both;  and  the  'dry  bones'  everywhere  are  shaking.  UJ.  D."  seems 
to  prefer  to  be  a  '  dry  bone '  still.  No  matter :  he's  past  prophesy  any 

how-  Truly'  etc"         C.  L.  VALLANDIGHAM. 

P.  S.  The  Enquirer's  bones  being  a  little  caries,  it  is  hard  for  them  to 
shake.  But  they  will,  by  and  by.  Am  trying  the  McGehan  case,  and  am 
full  of  murder  just  now." 

What  he  meant  in  his  letter  by  the  phrase  that  ' '  the  dry  bones  every 
where  are  shaking,"  was  a  reference  to  his  new  departure  in  political  tactics 
and  sentiment,  which  he  was  then  preaching.  He  advocated  absolute  ac 
quiescence  in  all  amendments  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  general  pacifica 
tion  of  the  elements  of  strife,  North  and  South.  In  this  liberal  endeavor  he 
was  thwarted  by  "  J.  D."  ;  or  those  representing  the  old  element,  of  which 
Jefferson  Davis  was  the  type. 

Almost  within  the  next  five  minutes  after  reading  this  letter  the  writer 
received  a  telegram  from  Dayton,  Ohio.  It  briefly  stated:  "Your  friend 
Vallandigham  accidentally  shot  himself  while  practicing  with  a  pistol  to 
illustrate  the  murder  case  which  he  was  trying.  Come  to  his  funeral  as  soon 
as  possible."  He  died  six  days  after  the  letter  was  written.  This  was  the 
last  of  earth  to  a  statesman  who  was  outspoken  and  fearless  in  a  time  of  great 
anxiety  and  peril, —  an  orator  who  graced  the  noble  fervor  of  many  an  hour 
by  the  affluence  of  his  classic  and  biblical  references  and  allusions,  and  who, 
while  steadfast  in  his  friendships  and  devoted  to  his  country,  never  failed  to 
draw  from  his  partisans  the  warmest  adulation  possible  to  leadership  in 
America. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  IMPENDING  CONFLICT. 

THE  THIRTY-SIXTH  CONGRESS  — WHAT  BECAME  OF  THE  MEMBERS  —  HOW  THEY 
ACTED  IN  THE  WAR  —  NORTHERN  AND  SOUTHERN  CONGRESSMEN  EMBAT 
TLED  —  A  PARLIAMENT  WITHOUT  PRECEDENT  —  WHY  THE  BATTLE  OF  BEL- 
MONT  WAS  FOUGHT -A  CHAPTER  OF  WAR,  ADVENTURE,  AND  NECROLOGY  — 
ELY'S  "ONWARD  TO  RICHMOND  "  —  JUDGE  REAGAN'S  REPULSE  OF  THE 
ENEMY  —  THE  SENATORS  AND  MEMBERS  IN  THE  FIELD  —  THEY  FOUGHT  AS 
THEY  VOTED  —  INAUGURATION  OF  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  —  FIRST  GUNS  OF 
THE  WAR. 

THE  object  of  this  chapter  is  to  give  something  of  the  after-life  of 
members  of  the  Thirty-sixth    Congress  who  were  conspicuous  in 
defending  or  resisting  the  doctrine  of  secession,  which  led  to  such 
lamentable  consequences.     u  There  were  giants  in  the  land  in  those 
days";    not  a  few   *'  mighty   men,  which  were  of  old,  men  of  renown." 
They  have  almost  passed  away  with  their  day  and  generation. 

The  Thirty-sixth  Congress  met  on  the  5th  of  December,  1859.  Consid 
ered  by  results,  it  was,  perhaps,  the  most  important  congregation  of  men 
that  ever  assembled  upon  our  continent.  It  held  the  destinies  of  our  institu 
tions  and  races  in  the  hollow  of  its  hand.  The  Senate  was  presided  over  by 
John  C.  Breckenridge,  Vice-President  of  the  United  States.  Its  members 
became  famous  in  the  two  subsequent  decades.  Hannibal  Hamlin  became 
Vice-President,  and  William  P.  Fessenden,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  They 
were  Senators  from  Maine.  John  P.  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,  was  a  man 
of  abundant  wit  and  juiciest  humor.  He  became  Minister  to  Spain  in  Pres 
ident  Lincoln's  administration.  He  returned  home  health-broken  and  spirit- 
broken,  in  1869,  because  of  the  attacks  of  a  New- York  paper.  Of  the  other 
New  England  members,  Jacob  Collamer  had  been  Postmaster-General,  and 
Henry  B.  Anthony  became  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate.  The  death  of 
Senator  Anthony  has  recently  been  deplored  with  most  fervent  and  sympa 
thetic  eulogy.  Lafayette  S.  Foster,  of  Connecticut,  preceded  him  as  Pres 
ident  of  the  Senate  and  Vice-President  ex  officio.  Massachusetts  had 
Charles  Sumner  and  Henry  Wilson  as  its  tribunes.  They  were  fit  repre- 


THE  SENATORS  IN  AND  AFTER  THE  WAR.  87 

sentatives  of  the  Puritan  and  progressive  element  for  which  New  England 
has  been  celebrated. 

New-York  had  Preston  King,  who  was  known,  when  in  the  Democratic 
ranks,  as  a  devotee  of  anti-slavery,  and  William  H.  Seward,  than  whom  no 
greater  Foreign  Secretary  has  appeared  since  Jefferson's  day.     Simon  Cam 
eron,  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  became  Secretary  of  War,  and  afterwards 
Minister  to  Russia.     He  lives  to  a  ripe  old  age,  not  so  much  in  his  son,  who 
is  his  senatorial  successor,  as  in  the  generosities  of  his  nature.     He  was  in 
defatigable  in  organizing  our  war  forces.     He  initiated  the  policy  of  enlist 
ing  colored  soldiers.     James  A.  Bayard,  the  irreproachable   Senator  from 
Delaware,  died  long  since,  but  he  survives  in  his  gifted  son,  upon  whom  the 
senatorial  mantle  also  descended.     James  M.  Mason,  of  Virginia,  is  most 
widely  known  by  his  association  with  John  Slidell  in  the  affair  of  the  Trent. 
Robert  M.  T.  Hunter,  of  the  same  state,  than  whom  no  man  was  more 
sedate  in  judgment,  survives  in  venerable  age.     He   became    Secretary  of 
State  in  the  Confederacy.     He  is  now  a  poor  man,  but  is  not  the  less  hon 
ored  by  his  state  and  by  his  record.     Since  the  close  of  the  war  he  has  served 
his  state  in  some  fiscal  relation.     He  will  be  known  to  those  who  care  to 
look  into  his  life  and  service  as  one  of  the  best  economists,  theoretically  and 
practically,  known  to  the  decade  which  preceded  the  war.     Among  other 
Confederate  Cabinet  officers,  he  was  for  some  time  a  prisoner  at  Fort  Pulaski, 
Georgia.     He  had  been  a  short  time  before  a  member  of  the  commission  that 
met  at  General  Grant's  headquarters  for  the  purpose  of  considering  terms 
of  peace.     Had  he  but  exercised  the  immense  influence  which  he  had  in  the 
South,  he  might  have  been  more  potential  than  almost  any  other  man —  not 
excepting  Jefferson  Davis  —  in  the  Confederacy.     Thomas  L.  Clingman,  of 
North  Carolina,  became  a  Confederate  general.     He  still  lives,  though  suffer 
ing  from  many  wounds.     He  gives  his  time  to  science,  and  his  memory  to 
politics.     James  H.  Hammond,  of  South  Carolina,  was  a  man  of  splendid 
ability  and  rare  oratory.     He  was   the  author  of  The  Pro-slavery  Argu 
ment.     He  long  since  preceded  his  colleague  in  that  Senate,  James  Ches- 
nut,  Jr.,  to  the  other  world.     The  latter  became  an  aid-de-camp  on  the  staff 
of  Jefferson  Davis,  and  afterwards  a  general  of  brigade.     Alfred  Iverson,  of 
Georgia,  was  then  an  old  man,  but  strong  of  will.     His  name  indicates  that 
he  belonged  to  the  Norse  race,  whom  no  disasters  by  sea  or  land  could  intim 
idate.     He  served  as  colonel  and  brigadier-general  in  the  Confederate  army, 
and  his  son  commanded  a  Confederate  regiment.     Robert  Toombs,  his  col 
league,  was  the  first  Confederate  Secretary  of  State.     He  retired  from  that 
office  in   July,   1861,  to   enter   the    Confederate  army.     He   commanded  a 
Georgia  brigade  in   Longstreet's  celebrated   fighting  corps.     He  had  some 
differences  with  Jefferson  Davis.     He  is  a  man  as  opulent  in  purse  as  he  is 
generous  in  disposition  and  able  in  oratory.     Benjamin  Fitzpatrick,  of  Ala 
bama,  retired  from  the  Senate  a  few  months  before  the  war  began.     He  was 


88  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

a  plain,  old-fashioned  miller,  and  not  a  man  of  conspicuous  ability.  He  had 
not  the  audacity  peculiar  to  men  of  dash  and  skill,  like  his  colleague,  Clement 
C.  Clay,  who  also  withdrew  from  the  Senate  about  the  same  time.  The 
latter  was  a  gentleman  of  elegant  and  dignified  presence  and  calm  elocution, 
but  of  defiant  attitude  upon  questions  affecting  Southern  policy.  Mr.  Clay 
became  a  Confederate  Senator.  In  1863,  he  went  on  a  foreign  mission  for 
the  Confederacy.  In  1865,  he  was  arrested  and  for  some  time  imprisoned  at 
Fortress  Monroe. 

Of  the  Senators  from  Mississippi,  one  was  Jefferson  Davis.  He  retired 
from  the  Senate  on  Jan.  21,  1861,  and  became  President  of  the  Confed 
eracy.  His  record  forms  a  large  chapter  of  American  history.  He  is  more 
widely  known  than  any  other  man  connected  with  that  Congress.  Albert 
G.  Brown,  the  other  Senator  from  Mississippi,  raised  a  military  company. 
He  became  its  captain  and  fought  at  Leesburg.  He  was  afterwards  elected 
to  the  Confederate  Congress.  When  the  war  was  over  he  returned  to  his 
plantation.  He  was  foremost  in  advocating  and  advancing  the  acceptance  of 
the  legitimate  results  of  the  war.  In  season  and  out  of  season,  he  opposed 
all  ineffectual  efforts  to  continue  the  conflict.  He  opposed  all  policies  that 
were  contrary  to  public  or  personal  liberty  and  to  the  progress  of  new  opin 
ions  and  new  elements  in  his  state.  He  died  in  1883,  generally  regretted. 
The  Senators  from  Louisiana  were  John  Slidell  and  Judah  P.  Benjamin. 
The  career  of  each  had  its  romantic  side  :  —  Slidell  became  the  Minister  of 
the  Confederacy  to  France,  and  gave  tone  to  a  certain  class  of  society  in  the 
French  capital.  Benjamin  was  an  Israelite.  He  was  the  first  Attorney-Gen 
eral  of  the  Confederacy ;  afterwards  he  became  its  Secretary  of  War  and 
Secretary  of  State.  He  was  thoroughly  educated  in  the  canons  and  practice 
of  the  civil  law.  After  the  war  was  over  he  betook  himself  to  London. 
There  he  became  one  of  the  most  successful,  as  he  was  one  of  the  most 
accomplished,  of  the  solicitors  and  advocates  of  the  British  bar.  He  died 
recently  in  Paris,  long  after  the  ardors  of  his  young  ambition  had  been 
burned  out.  Of  George  E.  Pugh,  of  Ohio,  the  writer  has  already  spoken. 
Benjamin  F.  Wade  is  best  known  as  a  man  after  the  Cromwellian  type.  He 
was  of  rugged,  fierce,  and  vindictive  feeling.  His  climax  as  a  politician  was 
reached  when  he  failed  to  take  the  place  that  would  have  been  vacant  by 
the  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson. 

Kentucky  was  well  represented  in  that  Congress.  John  J.  Crittenden 
had  been  twice  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States.  He  had  been  the 
governor  of  his  state,  and  been  four  times  elected  to  the  United  States  Sen 
ate.  Afterwards  and  during  the  war  he  became  a  member  of  the  House. 
He  was  a  fervent  patriot  and  a  leading  light  in  the  Union  cause.  Lazarus 
W.  Powell,  Mr.  Crittenden's  colleague  in  the  Senate,  was  a  man  of  large  and 
stalwart  frame,  whose  heart  was  co-extensive  with  his  body.  He  is  best 
known  by  his  wonderful  speech  against  military  interference  in  the  elections 


THE  SENATORS  IN  AND  AFTER  THE  WAR.          89 

of  the  people.  It  is  a  monument  of  which  his  children  may  be  proud.  It 
is  worthy  of  the  state  of  Henry  Clay.  It  is  worthy  of  a  state  which  has  pro 
duced  a  galaxy  of  men  each  one  of  whom  would  have  been  a  conspicuous- 
star,  but  for  the  varied  lustre  of  other  stars  of  primary  magnitude.  A.  O. 
P.  Nicholson,  of  Tennessee,  had  been  a  devotee  of  the  Union.  He  had 
been  a  writer  for  the  Washington  organ  of  the  Democracy.  Andrew  John 
son  was  well  known  for  his  devotion  to  the  Union  in  peace,  in  war,  and  in 
reconstruction.  Graham  N.  Fitch  and  Jesse  D.  Bright  were  the  Senators  of 
Indiana.  Both  were  intense  in  their  notions  of  duty.  They  had  an  inclin 
ation  toward  the  South,  but  with  no  loss  of  steadfastness  toward  the  Union, 
which  they  thought  could  not  be  preserved  by  coercion.  Trusten  Polk,  of 
Missouri,  was  a  man  whom  it  is  pleasant  to  recall  for  his  amiable  disposition. 
His  name  is  associated  with  many  heroes, —  clerical,  executive,  and  legisla 
tive.  James  S.  Green,  the  other  Senator  from  Missouri,  although  he  sank 
into  comparative  obscurity  after  the  war,  was  a  champion  for  the  vigor  of 
the  Constitution  in  its  relation  to  slavery.  He  competed  with  Douglas  for 
the  honors  of  the  great  debate  on  territorial  power  over  that  subject.  Zach" 
ariah  Chandler,  of  Michigan,  was  afterwards  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  He 
was  the  third  of  his  name  and  family  in  the  Senate.  Kinsley  S.  Bingham, 
his  colleague,  died  in  October,  1861.  Stephen  R.  Mallory,  of  Florida, 
became  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  of  the  Confederacy.  He  had  been  chair 
man  of  the  Naval  Committee  of  the  Senate  before  the  war.  After  the  close 
of  the  war  he  was  arrested  on  a  charge  of  treason,  and  confined  for  a  short 
time  at  Fort  Lafayette.  David  L.  Yulee  now  resides  in  Washington  City. 
He  lives  in  elegant  leisure.  He  was  the  companion  of  Mr.  Mallory  in  the 
Senate,  from  Florida.  He  was  also  a  companion  of  Mr.  Hunter  in  arrest  at 
Fort  Pulaski.  Mr.  Yulee  is  a  man  of  wealth,  which  he  accumulated  by  fore 
sight  and  skill  in  the  management  of  railroads. 

At  the  end  of  that  Congress  there  was  only  one  Senator  from  Texas  — 
John  Hemphill.  He  died  at  Richmond,  as  a  Confederate  Senator,  in  the 
early  part  of  the  war.  Lewis  T.  Wigfall,  his  colleague,  participated  in  the 
bombardment  of  Fort  Sumter.  He  was  for  a  short  time  a  brigadier-general 
in  the  Confederacy,  and  afterwards  a  Senator.  James  Harlan  and  James  W. 
Grimes  represented  Iowa.  The  former  has  since  been  Secretary  of  the  Inte 
rior.  He  is  now  connected  with  the  Alabama  Claims  Commission.  Senator 
Grimes  was  a  man  of  clear  intellect.  He  was  a  leader  in  the  business  of 
the  Senate.  He  has  long  since  deceased.  He,  too,  was  a  man  of  wealth. 
Charles  Durkee  was  known  for  his  hostility  to  the  fugitive-slave  law,  which 
Wisconsin  had  resisted  almost  as  persistently  as  Ohio.  James  R.  Doolittle, 
his  colleague,  was  then  a  Republican  Senator,  but  the  excesses  of  his  party 
after  the  war  was  over,  and  especially  in  connection  with  reconstruction 
and  impeachment,  drove  him  to  his  early  love,  which  was  the  Democratic 
party.  He  is  a  prominent  man  now  in  the  resumption  of  power  by  that  or- 

6 


pO  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ganization  to  which  he  gave  the  devotion  of  his  earlier  years.  The  only 
prominent  Senator  from  California  in  that  Congress  was  William  M.  Gwin. 
He  is  a  native  of  Tennessee.  He  is  a  man  of  herculean  build.  He  was 
early  associated  with  Southern  sympathy  and  interests.  He  gave  his  whole 
heart  to  the  cause  of  the  Confederacy.  In  many  relations  with  politics, 
before  and  since  the  war,  he  was  a  pillar  of  cloud  by  day  and  of  fire  by 
night,  upon  our  extreme  western  coast.  When  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress 
met,  Minnesota  had  but  one  Senator.  Henry  M.  Rice  is  specially  remem 
bered,  because  it  was  by  his  side,  when  he  was  a  Delegate  from  Minnesota 
before  the  state  was  admitted,  that  the  writer  sat  in  the  old  hall,  on  his  first 
entrance  into  Congress  in  1857.  Oregon  was  represented  by  Gen.  Joseph 
Lane  and  Gen.  Edward  D.  Baker.  Both  were  heroes  of  Mexican  fame. 
General  Lane  was  known  to  every  part  of  the  country  as  the  associate  of 
Mr.  Breckenridge  upon  the  Southern  ticket.  His  name  recalls  a  pleasant 
incident.  In  moving  into  the  new  hall  and  drawing  for  seats,  General  Lane 
was  awarded  the  seat  that  had  been  temporarily  occupied  by  the  author. 
When  the  name  of  the  latter  was  called,  although  the  youngest  of  the  mem 
bers,  General  Lane  escorted  him,  amidst  the  cheers  of  the  House,  to  the  new 
seat,  since  so  often  occupied  by  him,  saying  at  the  same  time :  "I  have  no 
need  of  a  seat,  sir  ;  but  I  expect  you  to  vote  very  soon  for  the  admission  of 
the  State  of  Oregon.  I  am  but  a  Delegate,  and  you  are  a  member.  You 
may  survive  me  in  the  work  which  is  here  to  be  done.  I  go  to  another 
sphere.  As  soon  as  the  vote  on  the  admission  of  Oregon  is  taken,  I  shall  be 
its  Senator."  At  the  outbreak  of  the  war  General  Baker  took  command  of 
the  "  California"  regiment,  and  fell  at  Ball's  Bluff  in  October,  1861,  while 
gallantly  commanding  a  brigade. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives  of  that  extraordinary  Congress  there 
were  109  Republicans,  101  Democrats,  26  "Americans,"  and  one  known 
as  a  Whig.  Of  the  State  of  Maine,  the  three  leading  men  were  :  Ezra  B. 
French,  who  became  Second  Auditor  of  the  Treasury  ;  Freeman  H.  Morse, 
who  went  abroad  as  Consul  to  London,  and  Israel  Washburn,  Jr.,  who 
became  governor  of  Maine.  New  Hampshire  gave  to  the  army  of  the 
Potomac  Gilman  Marston  and  Colonel  Tappan,  each  of  whom  led  well 
equipped  regiments  to  the  field  and  served  conspicuously  during  the  war. 
Their  splendid  records  may  be  found  in  the  volume  of  Major  Otis  T.  R. 
Waite,  entitled,  New  Hampshire  in  the  Great  Rebellion.  They  both  live, 
full  of  honors.  Vermont  had  Justin  S.  Morrill,  who  still  survives  as  the 
venerable  Senator  from  that  state.  He  is  known  for  his  peculiar  activity 
in  the  formation  of  protective  tariffs.  Massachusetts,  among  other  members 
of  rare  talent,  had  Anson  Burlingame.  He  was  noted  for  his  famous  esca 
pade  in  the  Brooks-Sumner  trouble.  He  became  our  Minister  to  China, 
and  afterwards  an  ambassador  of  that  power.  Alexander  H.  Rice  became 
governor  of  the  state.  John  B.  Alley  survives  many  not  so  rich  as  him- 


THE  NORTHERN  REPRESENTATIVES.  OI 

self.  He  is  now  a  resident  of  Washington.  Charles  R.  Train  was  for 
many  years  the  attorney-general  of  Massachusetts.  Henry  L.  Dawes  is 
now  a  Senator  from  that  state.  Eli  Thayer,  with  whom  the  author  was 
associated  at  Brown  University,  still  lives.  He  was  active  in  sending  anti- 
slavery  emigrants  into  Kansas.  He  is  a  man  of  eccentric  humor  and  of 
wonderful  and  advanced  thought,  mixed  with  practical  sense.  He  is  a  liv 
ing  steam  engine.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  by  inheritance  and  ability,  at 
that  time  might  almost  have  stood  as  a  bulwark  against  the  tumultuous 
waves  of  party  passion.  He  was  a  peerless  man.  He  discharged  with  dis 
tinguished  ability  the  delicate  and  arduous  duties  of  Minister  to  Great 
Britain  during  the  Civil  War.  His  diplomatic  correspondence  of  that 
period  shines  with  patriotism,  elegance,  and  eloquence.  Every  letter  is  a 
masterpiece.  Orris  S.  Ferry,  of  Connecticut,  afterwards  became  Senator. 

New- York,  at  that  time,  furnished  few  who  afterwards  became  conspic 
uous  in  public  life.  Among  those  who  became  known  in  the  war  in  a 
martial  way  were  Daniel  E.  Sickles,  John  Cochrane,  and  Charles  H.  Van 
Wyck.  The  latter  is  now  the  anti-monopoly  Senator  from  Nebraska. 
General  Sickles  organized  the  ''Excelsior  Brigade,"  whose  many  brilliant 
achievements  made  it  most  worthy  of  its  name.  It  may  be  said  that  he  is  one 
of  the  heroes  of  Gettysburg.  He  became  military  governor  in  the  South,  and 
afterward  was  Minister  to  Spain.  John  Cochrane  survives  in  great  vigor; 
and,  although  he  was  a  Republican  for  many  years,  he  has  returned  to  his  early 
love  —  the  Democratic  party.  Horace  F.  Clark  was  a  son-in-law  of  Vander- 
bilt,  of  New- York.  He  was,  at  that  time,  a  prominent  actor  upon  the  scene. 
John  B.  Haskin  still  lives.  He  has  been  an  active  politician  in  the  city  of 
New- York.  Francis  E.  Spinner  is  known  as  well  by  his  integrity  as  by  his 
signature.  Roscoe  Conkling  has  a  fame  that  reaches  to  the  extremity  of  the 
Republic,  and  far  beyond.  Charles  B.  Sedgwick  lived  many  years  in  his 
native  district,  the  honored  possessor  of  an  honored  name.  He  was  espe 
cially  honored  in  the  profession  of  the  law,  to  which  he  dedicated  most  of  his 
life.  He  died  three  years  ago.  Alfred  Ely  became  noted  in  connection  with 
the  battle  of  Bull  Run.  He  was  captured  and  borne  by  the  Black  Horse 
Cavalry  to  Richmond  under  the  cry  of  "  On  to  Richmond."  He  left  a 
blessed  name  as  the  dispenser  of  much  comfort  to  his  fellow-prisoners  in 
Libby  Prison.  Elbridge  G.  Spaulding  lives  in  Buffalo,  along  with  his  accu 
mulated  riches.  He  surveys  with  serene  satisfaction  the  history  of  our  bank 
ing  system,  with  the  origin  of  which  he  had  so  much  to  do.  Reuben  E. 
Fenton  represented  the  last  of  the  thirty-three  districts  in  New- York.  Since 
then  he  has  made  a  splendid  figure  in  the  Senate,  and  in  the  gubernatorial 
chair  of  New-York.  He  lives  to  make  his  reminiscence  of  the  scenes  of  this 
remarkable  Congress. 

William  Pennington  is  the  first  name  from  New  Jersey  among  its  five 
members.  He  became  Speaker  after  a  bitter  contest  lasting  two  months. 


92  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

He  had  been  governor  of  New  Jersey.  He  was  a  man  of  splendid  pres 
ence,  with  great  talent  for  humor,  a  capital  stump-speaker,  and  perhaps  the 
most  thoroughly  ^^accomplished  man  in  parliamentary  law  who  ever 
wielded  the  gavel.  Delaware,  then  as  now,  had  but  one  member,  William 
G.  Whiteley.  He  is  now  on  the  bench  in  his  native  state.  James  A. 
Stewart,  of  Maryland,  long  since  deceased,  became  a  judge  also.  J.  Mor 
rison  Harris,  Edward  H.  Webster,  and  Henry  Winter  Davis  were  elected 
to  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress  by  the  "  American  "  party  in  Maryland.  They 
gave  their  efforts  to  the  Union  party.  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Harris  sur 
vive.  Mr.  Davis  was  the  most  gifted  in  eloquence  and  logic  of  any  mem 
ber  in  Congress  within  the  author's  acquaintance.  Virginia  presented  a  re 
markable  company.  Their  subsequent  history  is  a  study  for  men  who  are 
adepts  in  necrology.  Muscoe  R.  H.  Garnett,  member  from  the  first  district 
of  Virginia,  married  Miss  Stevens,  a  rich  lady  from  Jersey  City.  He  volun 
teered  into  the  war  and  became  an  aide  to  Gen.  Joseph  E.  Johnston.  The 
author  was  informed  by  Judge  Reagan,  of  Texas,  who  was  the  Postmaster- 
General  of  the  Confederacy,  that  he  himself  was  present  at  the  battle  of 
Seven  Pines  when  General  Johnston  was  wounded  and  borne  off  the  field, 
at  the  time  Mr.  Garnett  was  with  him.  Jefferson  Davis,  General  Lee,  and 
General  Magruder  were  present  at  that  engagement.  Mr.  Garnett  after 
wards  died  ;  but  not  from  any  wounds  received  in  battle.  Daniel  C.  De- 
jarnette  became  a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  He  has  made 
frequent  visits  to  Washington.  Roger  A.  Pryor  is  a  revered  citizen  and  an 
eminent  lawyer  of  New- York  at  this  time.  He  is  a  hale,  manly,  courageous 
man.  He  dares  at  all  times  to  express  his  opinion  ;  even  though  it  may  be 
in  singular  contrast  with  his  previous  thought,  or  the  ideas  of  others.  He 
was  a  brigadier-general  through  the  war,  and,  wherever  it  was  possible,  he 
was  in  an  engagement. 

Thomas  S.  Bocock,  who  was  a  candidate  for  Speaker  of  the  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  and  for  whom  the  writer  voted,  became  afterwards 
Speaker  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  He  did  not  serve  in  the  army,  except, 
perhaps,  as  the  writer  has  been  informed,  on  one  occasion.  While  the 
troops  were  away  from  Richmond  and  a  raid  was  apprehended  from  the 
Union  cavalry,  Mr.  Speaker  Bocock,  after  the  manner  of  the  early  English 
Speakers  of  the  Commons,  assumed  a  military  r6le  and  became  captain  of  a 
company  of  members  of  the  Confederate  Congress  in  the  defense  of  Richmond. 
He  is  still  active  as  an  extensive  planter,  and  maintains  the  style  of  the  old 
and  elegant  Virginian  hospitality.  Shelton  F.  Leake  was  a  member  of  the 
Confederate  Congress.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  Governor  Smith  ?  He  is 
best  known  by  his  pet  name  of  u  Extra  Billy."  He  was  a  man  of  undaunted 
courage  and  of  wonderful  resources.  He  became  a  major-general  in  the 
Confederate  army.  He  graduated  from  the  war  as  the  governor  of  Virginia. 
He  and  his  sons  were  often  wounded,  for  they  never  shirked  danger.  Upon 


THE  SOUTHERN  REPRESENTATIVES. 


93 


one  occasion,  when  he  was  but  a  colonel,  he  was  ordered  by  a  general  in 
command,  to  move  forward  down  a  road,  to  divide  his  command  and  capture 
the  enemy.  He  rushed  to  the  capture  with  such  impetuosity,  that  when  re 
proached  for  not  dividing  his  force  as  he  had  been  ordered,  he  replied  :  "  I 
captured  the  enemy,  sir,  before  I  could  divide."  Alexander  R.  Boteler  is 
still  living.  He  had  some  relation  with  the  Centennial  Anniversary.  He 
made  the  most  eloquent  speech,  next  to  that  of  Sergeant  S.  Prentiss  in  his 
own  case,  ever  delivered  in  Congress.  He  was  a  Union  man  before  the 
war,  and  deprecated  hostilities.  He  made  a  picture  before  the  House,  of 
Washington,  the  Virginian,  with  his  homespun  and  buckskin-clad  patriots, 
moving  to  the  defense  of  Massachusetts.  It  was  emotional  enough  to  have 
stirred  the  stones  to  mutiny  against  secession.  But  afterwards  he  became 
"  Stonewall"  Jackson's  adjutant-general, —  a  fact  showing  the  force  of  state 
pride  in  forming  and  directing  the  plastic  Virginian  and  Southern  mind. 
Albert  G.  Jenkins  had  been  a  classmate  of  the  author  at  the  Athens,  Ohio, 
University.  He  commanded  a  cavalry  brigade  in  the  Confederate  army,  and 
was  killed  in  the  third  year  of  the  war.  Col.  Harry  A.  Edmondson  became 
a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress,  and  still  lives.  North  Carolina  re 
joiced  in  a  Union  man  whose  name  was  William  N.  H.  Smith.  He  came 
within  one  vote  of  being  Speaker.  After  the  many  complications  connected 
with  the  speakership,  the  writer  voted  for  this  gentleman  in  the  famous  con 
test  which  the  Helper  book  occasioned.  Twenty  odd  years  afterwards  he 
met  him  in  North  Carolina,  and  had  the  pleasure  of  being  introduced  by 
him,  in  courteous  words  and  kindly  oratory,  to  an  audience  in  Fayetteville. 
Mr.  Smith  is  now  chief  justice  of  the  state.  Thomas  Ruffin,  of  North 
Carolina,  died  of  wounds  as  a  prisoner.  Lawrence  O'B.  Branch  became  a 
Confederate  major-general.  He  was  killed  at  Antietam.  He  was  conspic 
uous  as  a  soldier.  While  a  member  of  Congress  he  was  dignified,  reticent, 
able,  and  just.  Warren  Winslow  was  fond  of  literature.  He  read  poetry 
amidst  the  most  fiery  debates.  He  was  not  a  young  man,  and  was  worried 
at  last  into  following  his  state  into  secession.  He  died  in  1863.  John  A. 
Gilmer  was  a  strong  Union  man  in  Congress.  He  had  a  treasure  of  fun 
which  his  oratory  and  features  never  belied.  He  became  a  member  of  the 
Confederate  Congress.  He  never  fought,  except  through  his  son.  He  lived 
until  after  the  war  was  over.  Burton  Craige,  of  North  Carolina,  was  a  man 
of  herculean  proportions.  He  is  chiefly  remembered  by  the  members  of  the 
Thirty-sixth  Congress  for  an  attack  made  upon  him  by  Mr.  Helper,  for 
something  said  in  debate  connected  with  local  politics.  The  attack  was 
made  with  a  pistol,  near  the  writer's  seat,  just  after  an  adjournment  in  mid- 
afternoon.  Zebulon  B.  Vance,  when  he  first  came  to  Congress,  had  a  very 
youthful  look.  He  registered  among  the  South  "  Americans."  It  was  not 
long  before  he  gave  evidence  of  being  a  strict  Federalist  after  an  intense 
Union  pattern.  His  voice  was  never  heard  at  Washington  for  disunion. 


94  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

He  served  with  the  writer  on  the  Committee  of  Revolutionary  Claims. 
Often,  along  with  George  Briggs,  of  New- York,  who  gave  the  casting  vote 
for  Mr.  Pennington  for  Speaker  in  the  long  contest  of  that  Congress,  he 
used  to  drink  "to  the  next  war"  from  a  healthy  and  stealthy  demijohn  in 
the  committee  room.  Little  was  thought  then  of  what  the  u  next  war" 
meant  to  them  and  theirs. 

South  Carolina  had  six  members  of  Congress.  They  were  men  of  varied 
ability.  John  McQueen  was  a  man  of  fine  physique  and  courteous  manner. 
He  was  brother-in-law  to  Governor  Pickens.  The  writer  recalls  him  from 
one  incident  which  happened  at  the  Metropolitan  Hotel  when  he  first  came 
to  Congress.  He  had  an  opportunity  of  exercising  a  little  surgical  skill  in 
setting  the  jaw  of  a  young  son  of  Mr.  McQueen,  who  had  dropped  two 
stories  into  the  area  of  the  hostelry.  Mr.  McQueen  used  to  say  to  the 
writer,  whom  he  always  called  "Doctor"  after  that  incident,  that  if  his 
boy  lived,  he  would  be  the  President  of  a  Southern  Confederacy ;  and  if  any 
difficulty  happened  in  the  culmination  of  that  event,  and  the  writer  should 
become  a  prisoner,  the  courtesy  of  the  McQueens  —  who  had  saved  Prince 
Charlie  in  Scotland  —  should  be  extended  to  him.  John  McQueen  became 
a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  He  was  not  in  the  military  service. 
He  died  in  1867.  William  Porcher  Miles,  of  South  Carolina,  was  a  man 
of  great  urbanity  and  ready  aptitude  in  speaking.  He  became  a  member  of 
the  Confederate  Congress.  He  is  now  the  president  of  an  agricultural  col 
lege  in  Virginia.  He  is  specially  adapted,  by  method  and  manner,  to  win 
people  to  his  thought.  Lawrence  M.  Keitt  was  the  Chevalier  Bayard  of 
the  Congress.  He  was  without  reproach,  full  of  dash  in  debate,  of  dainty 
elegance  of  expression,  and  fiery  ardor  for  his  section.  He  died  of  wounds 
received  at  Cold  Harbor,  twenty  miles  north  of  Richmond.  He  fell  while 
skirmishing  and  riding  wildly  ahead  of  his  regiment.  Milledge  L.  Bonham 
became  a  brigadier-general  in  the  war.  He  fought  bravely.  Afterwards 
he  became  governor  of  South  Carolina.  He  still  lives,  a  contented  planter. 
John  D.  Ashmore,  of  South  Carolina,  withdrew  when  his  state  seceded. 
His  hair  was  as  straight  as  that  of  an  Indian,  and  as  dark  and  glossy  as  that 
of  an  Oriental.  He  served  in  the  Confederate  army,  and  died  at  Sardis, 
Mississippi,  in  1871.  William  W.  Boyce,  dialectician,  student,  and  econo 
mist,  became  a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  He  lives  near  Wash 
ington  in  an  honorable  old  age.  He  is  worthy  of  the  best  description  of 
Cicero  in  his  De  Senectute. 

Louisiana  had  one  marked  Unionist,  John  Edmund  Bouligney.  He 
was  of  dark  aspect,  of  French  descent,  —  a  Creole  of  Creoles.  His  widow 
lives  in  Washington.  He  did  not  long  survive  the  outbreak  of  the  war. 
Miles  Taylor  was  as  sedate  as  a  judge, —  in  fact  he  had  been  upon  the  bench. 
He  became  a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  Thomas  G.  Davidson, 
a  stout,  heavy  man,  walked  with  a  cane  and  a  lame  foot.  He  still  lives  in 


THE  SOUTHERN  REPRESENTATIVES. 


95 


Louisiana.  He  has  been  a  member  of  local  legislatures  in  that  state.  John 
M.  Landrum  died  long  since.  Kentucky  gave  Henry  C.  Burnett,  with  a 
divided  sense  of  responsibility,  a  seat  in  the  Confederate  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  He  finally  reached  the  Confederate  Senate.  He  died  without 
military  service  shortly  after  the  war  ended.  John  Y.  Brown  came  to  Con 
gress  before  he  was  of  the  constitutional  age.  He  was  a  member  of  Con 
gress  with  quite  a  contest,  after  the  war  was  over.  William  E.  Simms,  of 
Kentucky,  was  also  a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  Of  the  Ten 
nessee  members  connected  with  that  Congress,  six  out  of  the  ten  were  Union 
men.  They  were  known  as  "Americans,"  sometimes  called  "Know- 
Nothings."  Of  these,  Horace  Maynard  turned  out  the  most  distinguished. 
He  became  Minister  to  Turkey,  and  afterwards  Postmaster-General.  He 
died  a  few  years  ago.  R.  B.  Brabson  broke  his  leg,  and  died  soon  after 
the  war  began.  With  Robert  Hatton,  the  writer  had  a  regretable  contro 
versy,  which  in  the  flush  of  that  time  looked  toward  a  personal  rencontre. 
Mr.  Hatton  became  a  Confederate  brigadier-general.  He  was  killed  at 
Seven  Pines.  He  has  left  a  remarkable  name  for  his  splendid  and  courage 
ous  defiance  on  the  field  of  battle.  J.  H.  Thomas  was  a  Democrat.  He  had 
been  a  law  partner  of  President  Polk.  He  was  a  good  lawyer,  and  a  man  of 
excellent  ability.  Of  John  V.  Wright,  who  is  still  as  young  in  appearance  as 
he  was  when  a  member  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  the  writer  can  speak 
with  some  ardor  and  personal  enthusiasm.  Mr.  Wright  had  a  personal 
trouble  with  John  Sherman  in  the  old  hall.  He  became  a  brigadier-general 
in  the  Confederate  army.  At  the  battle  of  Belmont,  Philip  B.  Fouke,  John 
A.  Logan,  and  John  A.  McClernand,  three  Democratic  members  from  Illi 
nois,  met  John  V.  Wright  upon  the  field.  There  was  no  military  object  in 
fighting  that  battle  —  if  the  writer  has  been  correctly  informed  —  except  to 
show  that  the  North  and  South  were  each  made  up  of  men  of  mettle.  At  that 
battle  there  was  a  romantic  incident.  Fouke  had  started  with  his  regiment  be 
yond  the  lines.  Wright  drew  his  telescope  upon  him.  He  saw  that  he  was 
the  whilom  Democratic  member  from  Illinois.  Fouke  was  riding  to  the  front 
to  make  a  reconnoissance.  A  soldier  lifting  his  musket  drew  a  bead  upon 
him.  Wright  immediately  said  :  "  Down  with  your  arms  !  Don't  fire,  for 
God's  sake,  don't  fire  !  "  Fouke  was  saved.  The  two  have  frequently  spoken 
since  of  the  imminent  danger  out  of  which  Colonel  Fouke  was  rescued  by 
old  congressional  associations.  John  V.  Wright  has  since  been  a  judge  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Tennessee.  He  now  resides  in  Nashville.  James 
M.  Quarles  was  at  first  a  Union  man.  He  was  a  brigadier-general  in  the 
Confederate  Army.  He  lives,  honored  in  his  profession,  at  Nashville,  Tenn. 
William  T.  Avery  represented  Memphis.  The  writer  received  a  letter  from 
him  while  he  was  a  prisoner  at  Johnson  Island,  during  the  war.  He  received 
courtesy  from  him  after  the  war  was  over,  in  Memphis,  and  regretted  to  hear, 
shortly  after  1877,  that  his  friend  had  been  drowned  in  the  Mississippi  River. 


96  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Missouri  gave  seven  members  to  that  Congress,  all  Democrats.  Thomas 
L.  Anderson  still  lives.  He  is  an  elderly  man,  a  prominent  lawyer,  and  has 
been  somewhat  engaged  in  politics  in  his  native  state.  John  B.  Clark  is 
now  a  blind  old  gentleman,  with  whom  the  author  has  often  conferred  since 
the  war.  He  is  a  man  of  rare  wit  and  indomitable  courage.  He  became  a 
general  in  the  Confederate  service.  His  son  served  ten  years  in  Congress 
from  Missouri,  and  is  now  the  clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  The 
father  was  in  the  Confederate  Congress.  James  Craig  lives  at  St.  Joseph. 
He  was  a  captain  of  Missouri  volunteers  in  the  Mexican  war.  He  became 
a  brigadier-general  in  the  Union  army  and  served  gallantly.  He  is  a  man  of 
wonderful  adaptability  to  public  life.  He  gives  his  thought  mostly  to  rail 
roads  for  the  increase  of  the  prosperity  of  the  West.  He  is  honored  among 
his  friends  at  St.  Joseph.  Samuel  H.  Woodson  and  John  W.  Noell  are  both 
dead.  Arkansas  furnished,  perhaps,  the  most  efficient  Confederate  major-gen 
eral  known  to  the  war.  His  name  is  Thomas  C.  Hindman.  He  was  an  irre 
concilable  man.  No  one  could  eat  more  fire  in  a  given  time  in  connection  with 
Southern  questions  in  that  Congress.  While  he  was  on  the  floor  of  the 
House  it  seemed  as  if  he  was  perpetually  anxious  to  have  a  duel.  He  lived 
at  Helena.  There  was  much  criticism  on  his  conduct  connected  with  the 
war.  He  had  made  private  enemies.  While  sitting  in  his  room  after  the 
war,  he  was  shot  through  the  window  by  some  one  unknown.  Albert  Rust, 
of  Arkansas,  was  a  tall,  elegant,  splendid  man,  of  kindly  sympathy  and 
great  heart.  He  became  a  general  in  the  Southern  Confederacy.  He  died 
in  1870.  The  Georgia  members  have  been  singularly  successful,  either  be 
cause  their  state  suffered  less  or  because  of  some  imperial  vitality  belonging 
within  its  borders.  L.  J.  Gartrell  was  colonel  of  the  Seventh  Georgia  Regi 
ment.  He  fought  at  the  first  Manassas  battle.  He  was  a  member  of  the 
Confederate  Congress,  and  afterwards  a  brigadier-general.  He  yet  lives. 
Peter  E.  Love  died  in  1861,  without  seeing  service,  either  civil  or  martial. 
Martin  J.  Crawford  was  captured  in  1862,  in  Kentucky.  He  was  a  Confed 
erate  colonel  of  cavalry.  He  died  within  the  last  two  years,  while  on 
the  supreme  bench  of  his  state.  James  Jackson  is  now  chief  justice  of 
Georgia.  Thomas  Hardeman  illustrates  most  substantially  his  surname,  for 
to  the  writer  he  seems  as  stalwart  as  he  was  twenty-four  years  ago,  when  he 
left  the  American  Congress  and  became  the  captain  of  a  Confederate  com 
pany.  He  was  wounded  at  the  battle  of  Frazer's  Farm ;  but  he  is  now, 
along  with  two  others  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  a  member  of  the 
Forty-eighth  Congress.  He  has  not  been  elected  to  the  Forty-ninth  Con 
gress.  Joshua  Hill  had  sons  who  fought  for  the  Confederacy.  He  was  a 
Union  man  and  became  a  United  States  Senator.  J.  W.  H.  Underwood,  of 
Georgia,  did  not  go  into  the  war.  He  was  one  of  those  men  who  had  sedate 
thoughts  about  our  future,  and  did  not  believe  that  anything  helpful  to  the 
South  could  come  from  the  contest. 


THE  SOUTHERN  REPRESENTATIVES. 


97 


Alabama  signifies  the  land  of  rest.  Before  the  war  closed  it  had  no  rest 
in  this  conflict.  The  member  from  Mobile,  James  A.  Stallworth,  is  remem 
bered  by  the  writer,  for  he  sat  near  him  in  that  Congress.  In  the  conflict 
between  Keitt  and  Grow,  in  the  small  hours  of  the  morning,  it  was  this  tall, 
robust  man  who  was  almost  the  first  in  the  melee.  He  took  no  part  in  the 
war,  and  died  shortly  after  it  began.  James  L.  Pugh  was  a  Calhoun  dialec 
tician.  He  is  now  a  member  of  the  United  States  Senate.  He  was  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  David  Clopton  served  in  the  same  Con 
gress,  and  became  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Alabama.  Sydenham 
Moore  went  into  the  war  as  colonel  of  the  Eleventh  Alabama,  and  was  killed 
in  the  Seven  Days'  fight.  Jabez  L.  M.  Curry  became  a  colonel  of  cavalry 
and  a  member  of  the  Confederate  Congress.  He  is  now  a  resident  of  Rich 
mond,  where  he  has  lived  for  many  years  since  the  war,  as  a  leading  minister 
of  the  Baptist  denomination.  He  is  the  head  of  the  administrators  of  the 
Peabody  fund,  and  administers  that  philanthropic  trust  with  wonderful 
sagacity  and  unceasing  energy.  Williamson  R.  W.  Cobb  is  remembered  as 
a  tall,  gaunt,  remarkable  man.  He  was  chairman  of  the  Land  Committee. 
He  was  elected  to  the  Confederate  Congress,  but  did  not  live  to  take  his  seat. 
He  was  accidentally  shot.  George  S.  Houston  was  chairman  of  Ways  and 
Means.  He  went  out  with  his  state,  and  afterwards  did  good  service  in  re 
storing  Federal  relations.  He  was  elected  to  the  Senate  in  1865,  and  was 
refused  a  seat.  He  became  governor  in  1874,  and  died  a  United  States  Sen 
ator.  As  to  Mississippi,  the  writer  remembers  specially  Reuben  Davis. 
He  was  always  upon  his  feet.  He  never  failed  to  make  sharp  points.  He 
had  been  judge  of  the  court  of  appeals,  and  colonel  of  the  famous  u  Missis 
sippi  Rifles."  He  served  in  the  late  war,  in  command  of  a  brigade.  He  is 
one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  of  his  state.  Gen.  Otho  R.  Singleton  is  now  a 
member  of  Congress  from  Mississippi.  He  is  one  of  the  oldest  members 
connected  with  the  Federal  Legislature.  He  was  in  the  Confederate  Con 
gress,  but  served  in  many  of  the  battles  of  the  war.  Lucius  Q.  C.  Lamar 
entered  the  Confederate  service  as  a  lieutenant-colonel  of  a  Mississippi  regi 
ment  ;  but  he  was  soon  appointed  by  Jefferson  Davis  on  a  special  mission 
to  Russia.  After  the  war,  his  accomplishments  led  him  to  become  the  pro 
fessor  of  economy  in  the  Mississippi  University.  His  rare  oratorical  and 
dialectical  skill  has  made  him  of  perpetual  utility  to  the  state  which  he  rep 
resented  so  well  in  the  Senate.  He  came  back  to  Congress  as  member  and 
Senator.  He  has  just  been  appointed  to  President  Cleveland's  Cabinet.  John 
J.  McRae  is  remembered  by  the  writer  with  singular  affection.  He  was  a  man 
of  extreme  views.  He  even  defended  the  slave-trade.  .  He  was  a  dissenter 
from  the  dissenters.  He  was  elected  to  the  Confederate  Congress,  but  ill 
health  led  him  to  Honduras  in  search  of  a  better  climate  and  relief  from  the 
anxieties  of  the  war,  and  there  he  died.  William  Barksdale  sought  no  civic 
honors  after  the  war  came.  He  went  into  the  army  as  a  private  in  the  Thir- 


98  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

teenth  Mississippi.  He  became  its  colonel.  He  was  in  all  the  battles  in 
Virginia.  He  became  a  general.  On  the  second  day  of  July,  1863,  in 
Longstreet's  charge  against  Sickles'  corps  at  Gettysburg,  he  was  in  the  ad 
vance.  He  fell,  and  with  him  most  of  his  brigade.  He  lives  in  the  memory 
of  his  state.  His  brother  worthily  represents  the  capital  city  of  Mississippi 
in  Congress. 

What  shall  be  said  of  Texas  ?  Texas  then  had  but  two  Congressmen  — 
John  H.  Reagan  and  Andrew  J.  Hamilton.  Now  she  has  eleven  members. 
This  illustrates  the  wonderful  development  which  Texas  has  had  since  the 
war.  In  fact,  Texas  was  a  reservoir  of  the  Southern  spirit  and  enterprise 
which  the  war  aroused.  The  war  gave  her  vitality  and  vigor.  Her  increment 
is  not  alone  due  to  her  situation,  soil,  climate,  and  area ;  but  to  that  inevita 
ble  law  of  movement  which  drives  men  away  from  the  localities  where  their 
cause  has  been  lost.  Texas  has  had  a  varied  and  singular  history.  Gen. 
Samuel  Houston,  Governor  Throckmorton,  now  a  member  of  Congress,  and 
Andrew  J.  Hamilton,  along  with  Judge  Reagan,  in  the  beginning  were 
Union  men.  When  the  war  was  over,  no  man  did  as  much  good  for  that 
imperial  state  as  Andrew  J.  Hamilton.  He  was  one  of  President  Johnson's 
best  provisional  governors.  He  was  in  the  constitutional  convention  when 
excesses  were  rife.  He  kept  that  state  out  of  trouble.  He  disfavored  the 
ab  initio  policy,  which  sought  to  eradicate  everything  upon  the  law  books, 
from  the  days  of  secession  to  the  days  of  reconstruction — making  nullity  and 
creating  confusion  and  litigation.  He  defeated  the  projects  of  the  wilder 
portion  of  the  extreme  men  of  the  Union  party.  When  Governor  Pease  fol 
lowed  him  in  the  executive  chair,  and  recommended  thirty  thousand  more 
proscriptions  than  reconstruction  proscribed,  Andrew  J.  Hamilton  success 
fully  resisted.  He  desired  that  every  man  in  the  state  who  was  a  voter 
should  vote.  He  thus  lifted  Texas  out  of  the  miry  muck  and  social  ostra 
cism  of  the  party  then  in  power  at  Washington.  He  remained  at  all  times 
loyal  to  the  Union  cause.  He  died  at  Austin  in  1875. 

Judge  Reagan,  of  Texas,  at  first  a  Union  man,  was  elected  to  the  Texas 
secession  convention.  He  followed  his  state  out  of  the  Union.  He  is  a  man 
of  civic,  social,  and  economic  thought.  He  is  indefatigable  in  its  vindica 
tion.  He  became  Postmaster-General  of  the  Southern  Confederacy.  How 
he  executed  that  trust,  Southern  men  know.  It  was  a  most  difficult  duty. 
He  did  not  serve  in  the  Southern  army ;  but  is  full  of  its  warlike  memories. 
At  Richmond,  during  many  emergencies,  he  had  occasion  to  observe  and 
sometimes  to  take  a  part  in  the  many  adventurous  dashes  which  belonged  to 
the  besieging  of  that  capital.  Oftentimes  Richmond  was  left  without  de 
fense.  On  one  occasion  when  some  Union  cavalry  made  one  of  their  daring 
raids,  Richmond  was  particularly  exposed.  The  Confederates  resorted  to  a 
ruse.  Colonel  Lines,  an  eminent  attorney  of  Richmond,  and  a  Confederate 
Senator,  was  in  command  of  the  principal  fortification.  There  were  no 


THE  SOUTHERN  REPRESENTATIVES.  9^ 

is  to  defend  it.     Mr.  Mallory,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  Postmaster- 
?ral  Reagan  visited  the  fortification.     In  a  stentorian  voice  Lines  corn- 
led  :  "  Reagan  and  his  troops  to  the  right !     Mallory  and  his  brigades  to 
eft ! "  and  in  equally   stentorian   voice   these    solitary   brigadiers   gave 
s  to  their  supposititious  commands.     The  enemy  at  once  fell  back  and 
:ty  was  saved !     Mr.  Reagan  recounts   this  exploit  with   great  gusto, 
now  one  of  the  foremost  members  of  the  House. 

George  S.  Hawkins  represented  Florida  alone.  It  was  on  his  motion 
that  the  South  made  the  first  attempt  at  recusancy  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  He  had  been  a  soldier  in  the  regular  army,  and  had  gone  down 
to  Florida  to  fight  the  Seminoles.  He  was  a  man  who  was  so  well  preserved 
that  he  had  been  married  six  times.  He  did  not  live  to  see  the  result  of  the 
war.  Iowa  furnished  two  men  to  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  Gen.  Samuel 
R.  Curtis  and  William  Vandever.  Col.  William  Vandever  did  service  in 
the  war ;  but  of  him  the  writer  cannot  speak  much.  But  of  Gen.  Samuel 
R..  Curtis,  the  hero  of  Pea  Ridge,  the  author  of  the  Pacific  Railroad  system, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  as  an  engineer  on  the  Muskingum  in  Ohio, 
and  on  the  Des  Moines  in  Iowa,  as  a  highly  distinguished  soldier  in  the 
Mexican  War  and  the  war  for  the  Union,  as  the  skillful  chief  engineer  of 
St.  Louis,  as  one  of  the  pioneers  who  came  through  Baltimore  with  the 
Seventh  Regiment  of  New-York  when  the  war  began,  and  as  one  of  the 
best  men  who  ever  wore  earth  about  him,  he  had  but  one  parallel  —  himself. 
Perhaps  the  writer  is  not  fitted  to  speak  of  him  impartially  because  of  inti 
mate  connections,  only  rendered  more  endearing  and  ardent  by  the  lapse  of 
time. 

Wisconsin  gave  Cadwalader  C.  Washburn  and  Charles  H.  Larrabee  to 
the  Union  army, —  one  from  each  party.  Washburn  rose  to  the  rank  of 
major-general.  After  the  war  he  served  in  the  Fortieth  and  Forty-first  Con 
gresses  and  became  governor  of  his  state.  He  died  in  1882.  Larrabee  be 
came  disabled  by  wounds,  and  after  the  war  removed  to  settle  in  Washing 
ton  Territory.  He  was  killed  in  a  railroad  accident  a  few  years  ago.  Cali 
fornia  at  that  time  was  represented  by  John  C.  Burch.  He  has  been  a  re 
porter  of  the  Supreme  Court  at  Sacramento.  Charles  L.  Scott,  her  other 
Representative,  removed  from  California  to  his  native  home  in  Alabama, 
where  he  now  lives.  Minnesota  furnished  two  members,  one  of  whom  has 
since  been  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  —  William  Windom.  He  was  con 
tinued  as  a  Representative  until  1870,  when  he  became  Senator.  The  other 
member  was  Cyrus  Aldrich.  He  was  afterwards  a  member  of  the  state 
legislature,  and  postmaster  of  Minneapolis,  where  he  died  in  1871. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  noted  men  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  was  a 
Delegate  from  Washington  Territory,  Isaac  I.  Stevens.  He  was  a  Massa 
chusetts  man,  a  West  Point  graduate,  and  a  splendid  soldier.  He  fell  at 
Chantilly,  Virginia,  in  1862,  at  the  head  of  his  division.  His  name  will 
long  be  revered  among  our  Western  pioneers  and  their  descendants. 


100  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

There  are  other  members  as  well  as  Delegates  of  that  Congress,  of  Wjn 
the  writer  could  and  should  make  special  and  honorable  mention.  Irjn 
memorabilia  connected  with  these  incidents  one  thing  is  apparent.  It  c^d- 
be  obliterated.  It  is  this :  the  great  body  of  the  men  who  gave  their  vot,rv 
that  Congress  to  secession  indorsed  them  by  martial  courage.  Man^pj 
defending  them  upon  the  field  of  battle.  Those  who  survive  bear  hone 

scars  in  personal  justification  of  their  opinions.     That  Congress  gave  a 

the  Union  cause  many  who  won  imperishable  renown  on  the  field  of  bak 
Those  who  remained  in  the  succeeding  Congress  were  engaged  in  a  no  less 
arduous  field  of  duty.     The  physical  strife  was  not  more  fierce  than  the  en 
counters  in  the  legislative  halls  over  issues  which  shook  the  whole  structure 
of  our  political  system  to  its  very  foundations. 

On  a  gloomy  day  in  March,  1861,  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress  adjourns 
sine  die.  There  are  many  sad  and  last  farewells  —  for  the  pall  of  impend 
ing  wrath  hangs  over  all  the  land.  Black  clouds  of  war  loom  up  all  around, 
surcharged  with  the  elements  of  death  and  devastation.  Abraham  Lincoln 
takes  the  oath  to  support  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States* 
For  the  first  time  in  the  Republic  a  Chief  Magistrate  is  installed  under  the 
protection  of  artillery  charged  with  grape  and  canister.  He  makes  his 
fealty  amid  no  holiday  array  of  plumed  horsemen  and  martial  music,  with 
gaudy  surroundings  of  fluttering  banners  and  streaming  pennons.  The 
pomp  and  circumstance  of  civic  and  martial  display  have  no  place  to-day 
in  the  Federal  capital.  No  loud  huzzas  greet  the  escorting  squadron  as  it 
advances  along  the  avenue  with  tightened  rein  and  clanking  scabbard,  and 
sabres  drawn,  all  ready  for  the  charge  !  This  small  but  disciplined  array,  the 
cold  line  of  infantry  with  bayonets  fixed,  the  champing  of  troop  horses, 
the  tramp  of  armed  men,  the  rumbling  of  cannons,  the  hoarse  command 
of  general  officers,  the  unlimbering  of  guns  trained  to  sweep  the  streets ; 
what  mean  these  dreadful  preparations  ?  Surely  this  is  a  vision  of  the  wrath 
of  war !  At  last,  in  the  culmination  of  the  events  which  presaged  it,  the 
supreme  moment  has  come.  There  is  a  short  truce.  Then,  hark !  the 
peace  is  broken.  South  Carolina  begins  the  conflict.  The  tempest  is  upon 
us !  The  lightnings  of  Moultrie  are  launched  against  the  Union  standard. 
For  days  it  proudly  waves  over  the  volcano  of  Sumter,  until,  at  last,  it 
falls  into  the  extinct  crater.  Before  the  evening  zephyrs  have  dispersed  the 
sulphurous  smoke  of  the  bombarding  guns  or  hushed  the  bellowing  mortars, 
the  "fall  of  Sumter"  is  flashed  to  every  hamlet  in  the  land  —  and  the 
whole  Nation  springs  to  arms !  Now,  indeed,  is  war  in  its  most  terrible 
form.  The  fields  of  strife  are  red  for  the  reaper.  The  abyss  of  the  grave 
yawns  for  the  embattled  hosts  who  are  to  fall  in  the  conflict.  Weep  now, 
ye  mothers,  for  the  sons  to  whom  ye  give  the  last  embrace  on  earth  ;  how 
unspeakable  is  your  portion  of  the  sorrow  and  desolation  that  is  to  come. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  THEORY  AND  PRACTICE  OF  SECESSION  —  MR.  CALHOUN'S  EXPOSITION  OF 
THE  DOCTRINE  —  HE  FAVORED  NULLIFICATION  BUT  NOT  SECESSION  — 
JEFFERSON'S  VIEWS  —  THE  KENTUCKY  AND  VIRGINIA.  RESOLUTIONS  - 
ALIEN  AND  SEDITION  ACTS  —  MR.  MADISON'S  INTERPRETATION  —  MASSA 
CHUSETTS  SHOULDER  TO  SHOULDER  WITH  SOUTH  CAROLINA  ON  STATE 
RESISTANCE  —  THE  PERSONAL  LIBERTY  BILLS  OF  THE  NORTH  —  SOUTH 
CAROLINA  LEADING  SECESSION  MOVEMENTS  —  ALEXANDER  H.  STEPHENS' 
GREAT  SPEECH  FOR  THE  UNION  — JEFFERSON  DAVIS'  PROPOSITION— ACTION 
OF  TEXAS  — THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY  IN  MONTGOMERY  -  FEDERAL 
AND  CONFEDERATE  CONSTITUTIONS  -  PROTESTS  AGAINST  SECESSION  -DE 
FACTO  IF  NOT  DE  JURE  GOVERNMENTS  IN  THE  SOUTH  —  A  LINE  OF 
HOSTILITY  BETWEEN  TWO  GREAT  COMMUNITIES  — THE  CRITTENDEN  RESO 
LUTIONS  —  SECESSION  AND  SLAVERY  SUBORDINATE  TO  THE  LINCOLN  POLICY 
FOR  THE  UNION  — THE  ANOMALOUS  SECESSION  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA  FROM 
OLD  VIRGINIA— VARIOUS  THEORIES  AS  TO  THE  INSURGENCY  —  ALL  MERGED 
IN  LINCOLN'S  POLICY  — THE  FINALE  OF  SLAVERY  AND  OF  ITS  INCIDENT, 
SECESSION. 


M 


R.  CALHOUN  is  regarded  as  the  expounder,  if  not  the  author,  of 
the  theory  that  the  several  states  have  the  sovereign  right  to  with 
draw  from  the  Union  whenever  a  majority  of  their  people  decide 
that  their  liberties  have  been  invaded,  or  are  unsafe  within  its  con 
trol.  This  opinion,  however,  has  no  foundation  in  his  speeches  and  writings 
on  the  principles  and  powers  of  the  Constitution.  He  expressly  disclaimed 
the  theory.  In  a  letter  from  the  late  Reverdy  Johnson  to  Edward  Everett, 
no  doubt  is  left  in  regard  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  views  on  secession.  The  letter 
bears  date  June  24,  1861 .  Mr.  Johnson  states  in  it  that  It  was  his  good  fortune 
to  be  a  member  of  the  United  States  Senate  for  four  years,  from  1845,  with 
Mr.  Calhoun  ;  that  during  two  sessions  they  resided  in  the  same  house ;  and 
he  thus  sets  forth  Mr.  Calhoun's  doctrine  : 

"  He  did  me  the  honor  to  give  me  much  of  his  confidence,  and  frequently 
his  nullification  doctrine  was  the  subject  of  conversation.     Time  and  time 


102  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

again  have  I  heard  him,  and  with  ever-increased  surprise  at  his  wonderful 
acuteness,  defend  it  on  constitutional  grounds,  and  distinguish  it,  in  that 
respect,  from  the  doctrine  of  secession.  This  last  he  never,  with  me,  placed 
on  any  other  grcuiid  than  that  of  revolution.  This,  he  said,  was  to  destroy 
Itjifc  goverimierit ;  .and  no  constitution,  the  work  of  sane  men,  ever  provided 
for  its  own  ^destruction.  The  other  was  to  preserve  it, —  was,  practically, 
bujt  -to  ^amejxd  Lt>  and  in  a  constitutional  mode.  As  you  know,  and  he  was 
ever  told,  I  never  took  that  view.  I  could  see  no  more  constitutional  warrant 
for  this  than  for  the  other,  which,  I  repeat,  he  ever  in  all  our  interviews  re 
pudiated,  as  wholly  indefensible  as  a  constitutional  remedy." 

The  doctrine  of  secession  is  sometimes  traced  to  the  Kentucky  Resolu 
tions  of  1798.  The  original  draft  of  these  resolutions  was  written  by  Mr. 
Jefferson.  But  a  careful  analysis  of  this  manifesto  shows,  that  while  it  seems 
to  give  countenance  to  the  idea  that  a  state  may  declare  an  act  of  Congress 
null  and  void,  it  cannot  be  cited  as  authority  for  the  more  radical  measure  of 
a  dissolution  of  the  Union.  At  least,  it  was  not  so  understood  at  the  time  of 
its  appearance. 

The  first  resolution  denies  that  the  states  are  united  on  the  principle  of 
unlimited  submission  to  the  general  government.  It  declares  that  by  com 
pact  they  constituted  a  general  government  for  special  purposes,  with  dele 
gated  powers,  while  reserving,  each  state  to  itself,  the  residuary  mass  of 
right  to  its  own  self-government.  It  adds,  "that  whensoever  the  general 
government  assumes  undelegated  powers,  its  acts  are  unauthoritative,  void, 
and  of  no  force  ;  that  to  this  compact  each  state  acceded  as  a  state,  and  is  an 
integral  party  ;  that  this  government,  created  by  this  compact,  was  not  made 
the  exclusive  or  final  judge  of  the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated  to  itself; 
since  that  would  have  made  its  discretion,  and  not  the  Constitution,  the  meas 
ure  of  its  powers ;  but  that  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among  parties 
having  no  common  judge,  each  party  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as 
well  of  infractions  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress." 

By  u  each  party,"  Mr.  Jefferson  refers  to  the  states  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  general  government  on  the  other ;  and  his  meaning,  therefore,  would  be 
that  the  states  as  one  party  and  not  a  single  state,  have  an  equal  right  with 
the  general  government,  to  judge  of  infractions.  It  is  true  that  this  was 
not  a  strictly  accurate  way  of  speaking,  since  the  Constitution  and  Federal 
Government,  which  were  created  by  the  states  and  people,  cannot  be  regarded 
as  a  party  to  the  compact.  They  are  the  creatures  of  the  compact.  But  the 
context  shows  that  Mr.  Jefferson  used  the  term,  parties,  in  this  sense  ;  and 
hence,  he  could  not  mean  that  a  single  state  could  decide  finally  upon  the 
constitutionality  of  the  laws  of  Congress. 

The  remaining  resolutions  show  that  the  Alien  and  Sedition  acts  of  Con 
gress  were  unconstitutional  usurpations,  unjust  and  oppressive.  The  last  of 
the  series  appeals  to  the  co-states  to  unite  with  Kentucky  i '  in  requesting 


KENTUCKY  AND  VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS. 


103 


their  repeal  at  the  next  session  of  Congress."     Such  was  "the  mode  and 
measure  of  redress  "  proposed  by  Kentucky. 

The  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Kentucky,  in  November, 
1799,  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  subject.  Mr.  Desha  -was  in  the 
chair.  After  some  time  spent  therein,  the  Speaker  resumed  the  chair,  and 
Mr.  Desha  reported  that  the  committee  had  taken  under  consideration  sundry 
resolutions  passed  by  several  state  legislatures,  on  the  subject  of  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  laws,  and  had  come  to  a  resolution  thereupon.  The  preamble  to 
this  report  says : 

"  To  again  enter  the  field  of  argument,  and  attempt  more  fully  or  forcibly 
to  expose  the  unconstitutionality  of  those  obnoxious  laws,  would,  it  is  appre 
hended,  be  as  unnecessary  as  unavailing.  We  cannot,  however,  but  lament, 
that  in  the  discussion  of  those  interesting  subjects  by  sundry  of  the  legisla 
tures  of  our  sister  states,  unfounded  suggestions  and  uncandid  insinuations, 
derogatory  to  the  true  character  and  principles  of  this  commonwealth,  have 
been  substituted  in  place  of  fair  reasoning  and  sound  argument. 
Faithful  to  the  true  principles  of  the  Federal  Union,  unconscious  of  any  de 
signs  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  that  Union,  and  anxious  only  to  escape  the 
fangs  of  despotism,  the  good  people  of  this  commonwealth  are  regardless  of 
censure  or  calumniation." 

The  resolution  was  adopted.  It  declares,  "  unequivocally,"  the  attach 
ment  of  Kentucky  to  the  Union  :  ' '  She  adheres  to  that  compact,  agreeably 
to  its  obvious  and  real  intention,  and  will  be  among  the  last  to  seek  its  disso 
lution."  She  asserts  "that  a  nullification  by  those  sovereignties  of  all 
unauthorized  acts  done  under  color  of  that  instrument  is  the  rightful 
remedy" 

The  Kentucky  Resolutions,  therefore,  claimed  the  right  of  the  states  —  not 
of  one  state  —  to  nullify  unconstitutional  laws;  and  they  expressly  repelled 
the  charge  that  their  import  and  purpose  was  to  destroy  the  Union. 

The  Virginia  Resolutions,  prepared  by  Mr.  Madison,  and  adopted  Dec. 
24,  1798,  are  still  further  removed  in  language  and  spirit,  from  the  doctrine 
of  secession. 

They  declare  that  the  General  Assembly  will  maintain  and  defend  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  They  profess  a  warm  attachment  to  the 
Union,  "to  maintain  which  it  pledges  its  powers."  The  third  resolution 
embodies  the  theory  of  the  Constitution  which  gives  character  to  the  docu 
ment.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"That  this  Assembly  doth  explicitly  and  peremptorily  declare,  that  it 
views  the  powders  of  the  Federal  Government  as  resulting  from  the  compact 
to  which  the  states  are  parties,  as  limited  by  the  plain  sense  and  intention  of 
the  instrument  constituting  that  compact,  as  no  further  valid  than  they  are 
authorized  by  the  grants  enumerated  in  that  compact ;  and  that  in  case  of  a 
deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  other  powers,  not  granted  by 


104  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  said  compact,  the  states,  who  are  parties  thereto,  have  the  right,  and  are 
in  duty  bound,  to  interpose,  for  arresting  the  progress  of  the  evil,  and  for 
maintaining  within  their  respective  limits  the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties 
appertaining  to  them." 

This  resolution  contains  the  peculiar  doctrine,  or  theory  of  constitutional 
construction,  which  the  legislature  meant  to  declare.  Others  follow  in  which 
the  particular  grievances  complained  of —  the  Alien  and  Sedition  acts  — 
are  set  forth.  The  series  concludes  with  protesting  the  truest  anxiety  of  the 
people  of  the  Commonwealth  for  "  establishing  and  perpetuating  the 
Union."  u  The  General  Assembly  appeal  to  the  like  disposition  in  the 
other  states,  in  confidence  that  they  will  concur  with  their  commonwealth  in 
declaring  that  the  acts  aforesaid  are  unconstitutional ;  and,  that  the  necessary 
and  proper  measures  will  be  taken  by  each  for  co-operating  with  this  state, 
in  maintaining  unimpaired  the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  reserved  to 
the  states,  respectively,  or  to  the  people." 

In  an  elaborate  paper,  prepared  by  Mr.  Madison  many  years  after  the 
events  to  which  these  resolutions  relate,  he  defends  them  with  great  force  of 
logic.  He  repels  the  inferences  that  have  been  drawn  from  them,  that  they 
give  sanction  to  either  nullification  or  secession.  He  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  resolutions  claim  for  the  "  states," — meaning  all  the  states, — 
the  authority  to  interpose  for  arresting  the  evil,  and  for  protecting  their  re 
served  rights.  He  rejects  the  idea  that  one  state  may  do  this ;  but  that  the 
states,  in  council  or  convention,  which  framed  the  compact,  or  have  become 
parties  to  it,  may  do  so.  It  follows,  of  course,  that  Congress  would  promptly 
repeal  an  obnoxious  act  which  had  been  declared  null  and  void  by  a  majority 
of  the  states,  and  the  remedy  proposed  would  be  at  once  effectual  and  peaceful. 
This  masterly  paper,  with  other  selections  from  the  writings  of  Mr.  Madison, 
was  published  in  1853,  "  exclusively  for  private  distribution,"  and  has  there 
fore  been  seen  and  read  by  few. 

In  another  able  paper  Mr.  Madison  combats  the  secession  theory  that 
sovereignty  is  indivisible.  He  points  to  its  inconsistency  with  the  fact  that 
the  Constitution  confers  sovereign  and  exclusive  powers  upon  the  general 
government,  accompanied  by  the  means  of  enforcing  them,  while  other  sov 
ereign  powers  are  reserved  to  the  states. 

Mr.  Madison  incidentally  refers  to  the  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  Mr.  Jef 
ferson.  He  denies  that  they  give  countenance  to  the  theory  of  secession  and 
nullification  by  a  single  state.  It  is  curious  to  note,  in  this  connection, 
that  while  the  responses  from  the  states  under  the  control  of  the  Federal 
party  concur  in  condemning  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  none  of  them  make 
the  charge  of  a  deliberate  purpose  to  break  up  the  Union.  They  deny  the 
right  of  the  states  to  pronounce  an  act  of  Congress  unconstitutional,  null,  and 
void,  and  declare  that  the  tendency  of  such  proceedings  is  to  produce  anarchy 
or  revolution  ;  but  the  purpose  of  revolution  is  not  charged. 


DEFEAT  OF  THE  FEDERALISTS.  105 

The  first  section  of  the  Sedition  Act  passed  July  14,  1 798,  provided  :  "  That 
if  any  persons  shall  unlawfully  combine  or  conspire  together,  with  intent  to 
oppose  any  measure  or  measures  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
which  are  or  shall  be  directed  by  proper  authority,  or  to  impede  the  opera 
tion  of  any  law  of  the  United  States,  or  to  intimidate  or  prevent  any  person 
holding  a  place  or  office  in  or  under  the  Government  of  the  United  States, 
from  undertaking,  performing  or  executing  his  trust  or  duty  ;  and  if  any  per 
son  or  persons,  with  intent  as  aforesaid,  shall  counsel,  advise  or  attempt  to 
procure  any  insurrection,  riot,  unlawful  assembly,  or  combination,  whether 
such  conspiracy,  threatening,  counsel,  advice,  or  attempt  shall  have  the 
proposed  effect  or  not,  he  or  they  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  high  misde 
meanor."  The  penalty  was  a  fine  not  exceeding  five  thousand  dollars,  and 
imprisonment  for  not  less  than  six  months  nor  exceeding  five  years, —  and,  at 
the  discretion  of  the  court,  sureties  for  good  behavior  might  be  required. 

The  second  section  provided:  "That  if  any  person  shall  write,  print, 
utter  or  publish,  or  shall  cause  or  procure  to  be  written,  printed,  uttered  or 
published,  or  shall  knowingly  and  willingly  assist  or  aid  in  writing,  printing, 
uttering  or  publishing,  any  false,  scandalous,  and  malicious  writings  against 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  either  House  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  or  the  President  of  the  United  States,  with  intent  to  defame 
the  said  Government,  .  .  .  or  to  excite  against  them  the  hatred  of  the 
people,  or  to  stir  up  sedition, "  he  was  to  be  punished,  on  conviction,  by  fine 
not  exceeding  two  thousand  dollars,  and  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding 
two  years.  The  act  was  to  terminate  on  March  3,  1801. 

These  unpopular  measures  of  the  Federal  party,  together  with  the  Alien 
act,  passed  on  June  25,  1798,  contributed  more,  perhaps,  to  the  overthrow 
of  that  party  than  all  other  causes  combined.  Opposition  to  these  illib 
eral  laws  became  the  shibboleth  and  the  platform  of  the  Republican  (or 
Democratic)  party  of  that  day.  Under  that  sign  it  conquered  in  the  elec 
tion  of  Thomas  Jefferson  over  John  Adams,  the  leader  of  the  Federalists. 

The  Alien  act  gave  the  President  authority  to  order  all  such  aliens  as 
he  might  judge  dangerous  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  the  United  States, 
or  might  have  reasonable  grounds  to  suspect  of  treasonable  practices,  to 
depart  out  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States  within  the  time  ex 
pressed  in  his  order.  The  marshal  was  directed  to  serve  the  order,  or 
leave  a  copy  at  the  usual  place  of  abode  of  the  alien.  Three  years'  imprison 
ment  and  permanent  exclusion  from  the  country  was  the  penalty  for  failure 
to  depart  within  the  time  specified.  Licenses  to  remain  might  be  granted  to 
such  aliens  as  could  show  that  no  harm  would  result  to  the  country  from  their 
presence.  Masters  of  vessels  were  required  to  report  to  the  collector  of  the 
customs,  the  names,  ages  and  places  of  nativity,  the  occupations,  and  places 
of  embarkation  of  all  aliens  brought  into  the  country.  The  operation  of  this 
act  was  limited  to  two  years  from  the  date  of  its  passage. 
7 


IO6  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

An  "  act  respecting  alien  enemies"  was  passed  on  July  6,  of  the  same 
year.  This  act  is  still  in  force. 

The  denial  by  the  Federal  party  of  the  right  to  question  the  constitution 
ality  of  acts  of  Congress  by  the  states  in  the  mode  proposed,  was  singularly 
narrow  in  spirit.  It  was  the  denial  to  the  sovereign  states  which  framed 
and  adopted  the  Constitution,  of  a  right  which  is  freely  exercised  by  every 
citizen.  It  happened,  a  few  years  later,  that  the  Federalists  themselves  were 
guilty  of  nullification,  under  circumstances  of  overt  action  which  made  their 
conduct  criminal.  When  war  was  declared  against  Great  Britain,  in  June, 
1812,  and  the  President  made  requisitions  upon  the  governors  of  the  states 
to  furnish  militia  for  the  war,  both  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  refused 
compliance,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  unconstitutional  to  call  out  the 
militia  until  the  enemy  had  invaded  the  country.  In  other  words,  Con 
gress  might  declare  war,  but  it  could  not  raise  an  army  until  the  enemy  had 
gained  a  foothold  on  our  soil.  A  committee  of  the  Massachusetts  Legisla 
ture,  in  February,  1814,  made  the  following  report  to  that  body  : 

u  A  power  to  regulate  commerce  is  abused,  when  employed  to  destroy 
it;  and  a  manifest  and  voluntary  abuse  of  power  sanctions  the  spirit  of 
resistance  as  much  as  a  direct  and  palpable  usurpation.  The  sovereignty 
reserved  to  the  states  was  reserved  to  protect  the  citizens  from  acts  of  vio 
lence  by  the  United  States,  as  well  as  for  the  purpose  of  domestic  regulation. 
We  spurn  the  idea  that  the  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  State  of  Mas 
sachusetts  is  reduced  to  a  mere  municipal  corporation,  without  power  to 
protect  its  people  and  defend  them  from  oppression,  from  whatever  quarter 
it  comes.  When  the  national  compact  is  violated  and  the  citizens  of  the 
state  are  oppressed  by  cruel  and  unauthorized  law,  this  legislature  is  bound 
to  interpose  its  power,  and  wrest  from  the  oppressor  his  victim." 

It  appears  from  this  declaration,  that  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina 
stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  state  resistance  to 
what  their  authorities  might  regard  as  Federal  usurpation. 

But  the  only  successful  instances  of  the  nullification  of  a  law  of  the 
United  States  are  furnished  in  what  are  known  as  the  "Personal  Liberty 
Bills."  These  were  enacted  in  several  of  the  Northern  states.  Their  pur 
pose  was  to  obstruct  and  defeat  the  execution  of  the  fugitive-slave  act  of 
1850.  That  act  provided  that  a  fugitive  from  labor,  who  had  escaped  into 
another  state,  might  be  seized  by  the  owner,  or  his  agent  or  attorney,  with  or 
without  a  warrant.  Being  brought  before  a  United  States  commissioner,  or 
judge,  either  of  those  officers  was  required  to  hear  the  case,  and  "  in  a  sum 
mary  manner  "  remand  the  fugitive  to  the  custody  of  the  claimant,  his  agent 
or  attorney,  upon  the  oath  or  affidavit  of  the  claimant,  his  agent  or  attor 
ney.  The  fugitive  was  not  allowed  to  testify  in  his  own  behalf.  The  United 
States  marshals  were  required  to  arrest  the  fugitives.  This  duty  was  to  be 
done  under  a  penalty  for  refusal  or  neglect.  It  was  necessary  for  the  claim- 


NORTHERN  NULLIFICATION  ACTS.  107 

ant  to  take  with  him  from  the  state  in  which  he  and  his  slave  resided,  a 
certified  paper  of  a  court  of  record,  showing  that  he  had  appeared  before 
the  judge  thereof  and  made  oath  to  the  fact  of  his  ownership  of  the  slave  and 
of  the  escape  of  the  latter,  accompanied  with  a  description  of  his  person. 
All  agood  citizens"  were  commanded  to  assist  the  marshal  in  arresting  the 
fugitive.  Any  person  who  should  obstruct  or  oppose  the  marshal,  or  the 
claimant,  in  arresting  the  fugitive,  was  liable  to  a  fine  of  one  thousand  dollars 
and  imprisonment. 

The  Massachusetts  Legislature,  in  1843,  had  passed  an  act  forbidding  sher 
iffs  and  other  state  officers  to  aid  in  arresting  or  detaining  fugitive  slaves,  or 
to  confine  them  in  the  jails  of  the  state.  In  1855  this  act  was  re-enacted  with 
reference  to  fugitives  arrested  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  1850.  This  act 
of  the  legislature  provided  that  fugitives  from  slavery  should  have  the  benefit 
of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  of  trial  by  jury.  State  officers  were 
again  forbidden  to  aid  in  making  arrests  of  fugitives,  on  pain  of  forfeiture  of 
office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  office  in  the  state.  State  judges  were  lia 
ble  to  impeachment  for  issuing  warrants  of  arrests  in  such  cases.  The  gov 
ernor  was  required  to  appoint  county  commissioners  to  defend  persons 
claimed  as  fugitives.  State  jails  were  not  to  be  used  for  the  imprisonment  of 
fugitives.  Each  of  these  acts  was  unconstitutional. 

Vermont,  in  the  year  1843,  enacted  a  law  with  provisions  similar  to  those 
in  the  Massachusetts  act  of  that  year.  In  1850,  1854,  and  1858,  additional 
enactments  rendered  it  utterly  impracticable  to  arrest  a  fugitive  slave  in  Ver 
mont.  It  was  made  a  criminal  offense  for  any  person  to  declare  or  represent 
that  any  free  person  within  the  state  owed  service  as  a  slave.  The  privi 
lege  of  habeas  corpus  and  trial  by  jury  were  given  to  fugitives,  and  the  oath 
of  two  witnesses  was  required  to  establish  the  fact  of  slavery. 

The  Legislature  of  New- York,  in  1840,  gave  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  to 
fugitive  slaves. 

Pennsylvania,  in  1847,  passed  a  similar  act. 

The  Legislature  of  Michigan,  in  1855,  enacted  that:  "Whenever  any  in 
habitant  of  the  state  is  arrested  or  claimed  as  a  fugitive  slave,"  the  prosecut 
ing  attorney  of  the  county  shall  ' '  use  all  lawful  means  to  protect  and  defend 
every  such  person."  All  persons  so  arrested  and  claimed  as  fugitive  slaves 
were  to  be  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  to  trial 
by  jury.  The  jails  of  the  state  were  not  to  be  used  for  imprisoning  fugitives. 
Persons  who  falsely  charged  a  free  person  with  being  a  fugitive  slave  were 
to  be  punished  with  imprisonment  for  not  less  than  three  years.  For  wrong 
fully  seizing  a  free  person  the  penalty  was  five  years'  imprisonment.  The 
proof  of  slavery  required  two  witnesses. 

The  Legislature  of  Wisconsin,  in  1858,  passed  an  act  almost  identical 
with  the  statute  of  Michigan. 

These  statutes  of  the  states  were  in  direct  conflict  with  the  fugitive-slave 


I08  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

act  of  Congress.  They  were  designed  to  obstruct  and  defeat  the  execution 
of  that  act.  They  were  practical  applications  of  the  doctrine  of  nullifica 
tion.  They  were  effective  to  that  end  in  almost  every  instance.  The  census 
of  1860  showed  that  during  the  preceding  decade,  the  escaping  slaves  from 
the  South  averaged  about  one  hundred  per  annum,  and  of  this  number 
scarcely  one  in  ten  was  reclaimed ;  and  of  those  who  reached  the  states 
which  enacted  the  Personal  Liberty  bills,  not  more  than  two  or  three  in 
the  hundred  were  carried  back  into  slavery. 

It  was  owing  to  these  acts,  and  the  apprehension  of  more  serious  denials 
of  state  rights,  that  South  Carolina  led  the  secession  movement  in  1860. 
That  small  state,  with  a  white  population  of  291,300,  and  a  black  population 
of  412,320,  began  the  work  of  disintegration.  Her  ruling  class  was  nearly 
unanimous  in  the  belief  that  the  election  of  a  Republican  President  was  a 
justification  of  the  measure.  Her  governor,  William  H.  Gist,  in  obedience 
to  public  sentiment,  and  in  anticipation  of  the  event,  recommended,  in  his 
annual  message,  the  call  of  a  state  convention  for  the  purpose  of  considering 
the  "  mode  and  measure  of  redress."  The  legislature  responded.  At  the 
same  time  the  formality  was  observed  of  choosing  Presidential  electors. 
These  electors  cast  the  vote  of  the  state  for  Breckenridge  and  Lane.  The 
delegates  to  the  convention  were  chosen  Dec.  6,  1860.  That  body  met  on 
the  1 7th.  The  secession  ordinance  was  adopted  on  the  2oth.  The  United 
States  officials  in  the  state,  and  the  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Con 
gress  resigned  their  places.  The  ordinance  is  brief.  It  served  as  the  model 
for  the  other  seceding  states.  It  declares :  "  that  the  ordinance  adopted 
.  in  convention,  on  the  23d  day  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1788,  whereby  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America  was  ratified, 
and  also  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  this  state  ratify 
ing  the  amendments  of  the  said  Constitution,  are  hereby  repealed,  and  that 
the  Union  now  subsisting  between  South  Carolina  and  the  other  states  under 
the  name  of  the  United  States  of  America  is  hereby  dissolved." 

The  vote  on  the  passage  of  the  ordinance  was  unanimous.  A  declaration 
of  the  "  Causes  which  induced  the  Secession  of  South  Carolina,"  was 
adopted.  This  document  briefly  refers  to  the  events  which  preceded  the  for 
mation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  announces  the  grounds 
of  separation.  It  asserts  that  fourteen  of  the  states  had  deliberately  refused 
for  years  past  to  fulfill  their  constitutional  obligations.  It  refers  to  their 
statutes  for  proof.  The  address  copies  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which 
requires  that  fugitives  held  to  service  in  one  state,  escaping  into  another, 
shall  be  delivered  up.  It  proceeds  to  remark  that  this  stipulation  was  so 
material  that  the  compact  could  not  have  been  ratified  without  that  clause. 

The  states  of  Maine.  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Connecti 
cut,  Rhode  Island,  New- York,  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Michigan, 
Wisconsin,  and  Iowa  are  arraigned  for  enacting  laws  which  either  nullified 
the  acts  of  Congress,  or  rendered  useless  any  attempt  to  execute  them. 


RETURN  OF  FUGITIVE  SLAVES.  109 

It  was  true  that  in  many  of  these  states  the  fugitive  w  as  discharged  from 
the  service  of  labor  claimed.  In  none  of  them  did  the  state  government 
comply  with  the  stipulations  made  in  the  Constitution.  The  State  of  New 
Jersey,  at  an  early  day,  passed  a  law  in  conformity  with  her  constitutional 
obligation ;  but  the  current  of  anti-slavery  feeling  led  her  more  recently 
to  enact  laws  which  rendered  inoperative  the  remedies  provided  by  the 
former  law  and  the  acts  of  Congress.  In  the  State  of  New-York,  even  the 
right  of  transit  with  a  slave  was  denied  by  her  tribunals.  The  states  of  Ohio 
and  Iowa  refused  to  surrender  to  justice  fugitives  charged  -with  murder. 
Their  people  incited  a  servile  insurrection  in  the  State  of  Virginia.  Thus,  said 
the  address,  "  the  constitutional  compact  has  been  deliberately  broken  and 
disregarded  by  the  non-slave-holding  states ;  and  the  consequence  follows 
that  South  Carolina  is  released  from  her  obligation." 

It  is  singular  that  in  this  declaration  of  the  causes  which  impelled  the 
people  of  South  Carolina  to  attempt  a  withdrawal  from  the  Union,  there  is 
not  an  intimation  that  the  Federal  Government,  in  any  of  its  departments, 
had  encroached  upon  the  rights  of  the  state.  It  is  not  charged  that  Con 
gress,  or  the  Executive,  or  the  Supreme  Court,  had  been  guilty  of  usurpa 
tion,  or  that  any  one  of  them  had  failed  to  perform  the  duties  imposed  by  the 
Constitution.  The  whole  ground  of  separation  is  based  on  the  action  of 
certain  states  in  nullifying  an  act  of  Congress.  This  was,  to  say  the  least, 
a  strange  predicament  in  which  the  State  of  South  Carolina  placed  herself, 
namely,  that  of  a  resort  to  secession  as  a  remedy  against  her  own  favorite 
policy  of  nullification. 

As  a  further  ground  of  justification,  the  declaration  alleges  the  facts  that 
the  Republican  party  had  elected  Abraham  Lincoln  to  the  Presidency; 
that  his  party  was  pledged  to  the  doctrine  of  the  non-extension  of  slavery ; 
and  that  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  had  declared  that  the  "  Government  cannot 
endure  permanently,  half  free,  half  slave."  But  the  declarations  of  a  party 
which  owed  its  success  entirely  to  divisions  in  the  ranks  of  its  opponents 
were  not  likely  to  be  engrafted  on  the  statute-books  during  a  single  Presi 
dential  term  ;  while  to  withdraw  from  the  Union,  even  peaceably,  would 
involve  the  inevitable  consequence  of  losing  the  constitutional  guaranty  for 
the  return  of  fugitive  slaves.  Nothing  could  be  more  remote  from  proba 
bility  than  the  assumption  that  the  Northern  states  would  concede  to  a 
Southern  confederacy  the  right  to  reclaim  runaway  slaves.  Their  reclama 
tion  would  not  have  been  tolerated  under  such  a  state  of  things.  Neither 
could  Southern  men  have  reasonably  calculated  upon  a  division  of  the  ter 
ritories  between  a  Northern  and  Southern  confederacy.  The  condition  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska  as  free  communities  was  then  already  decided.  The 
remaining  territories,  if  that  held  by  the  Indians  be  excepted,  were  in  no 
respect  adapted  to  the  introduction  of  slavery.  They  were  mostly  too 
far  north,  sterile,  or  mountainous.  Those  best  adapted  to  agriculture  were 


IIO  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

already  under  the  control  of  Northern  men.  It  should  have  been  remem 
bered  by  Southern  men,  that  Great  Britain  and  other  European  powers, 
though  anxious  to  see  the  Union  broken  up,  were  as  unfriendly  to  slavery  as 
the  Northern  abolitionists,  and  far  more  so  than  the  great  mass  of  Northern 
men.  In  the  event  of  successful  secession,  and  the  formation  of  a  Southern 
confederacy,  those  trans- Atlantic  powers  would  feel  at  liberty  to  take  a  far 
higher  tone  in  regard  to  slavery  than  they  had  ever  ventured  upon  while  the 
institution  enjoyed  the  protection  of  the  American  flag.  Great  Britain, 
France,  Germany,  Austria,  and  Italy  might  unite  in  treating  inter-state  com 
merce  by  sea  in  slaves  as  piracy.  The  Northern  people  would  naturally  have 
sympathized  with  and  acquiesced  in  this  European  policy ;  and  the  Southern 
Confederacy  would  thus  have  found  that  political  independence  of  the  North 
had  made  their  institution  more  vulnerable  than  ever  to  the  intolerant  anti- 
slavery  senfiment  of  the  civilized  world.  The  prolonged  existence  of  sla 
very  under  such  circumstances  would  have  been  impossible. 

Pending  the  debate  in  the  South  Carolina  Convention  upon  the  declara 
tion  of  causes  for  secession,  Mr.  Gregg,  a  leading  member,  objected  that  no 
reference  was  made  in  it  to  the  tariff,  and  internal  improvements  policy. 
But  to  this  Mr.  Keitt,  who  had  for  years  been  a  prominent  member  of  the 
United  States  House  of  Representatives,  pertinently  replied:  "Your  late 
Senators,  and  every  one  of  your  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
voted  for  the  present  tariff.  If  the  gentleman  had  been  there  he  would  have 
voted  for  it.  The  tariff  is  not  the  question  which  has  brought  us  up  to  our 
present  attitude.  I  am  willing  in  this  issue  to  rest  disunion  upon  the  ques 
tion  of  slavery."  Mr.  Keitt,  in  the  same  connection,  expressed  his  doubts 
about  the  constitutionality  of  the  fugitive-slave  act.  This  was  to  admit  that 
the  Northern  states  in  adopting  their  personal  liberty  bills,  had  only  nulli 
fied  an  unconstitutional  act  of  Congress.  Mr.  Rhett  reiterated  the  same 
doubt  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  fugitive-slave  act.  Mr.  Meminger, 
the  author  of  the  declaration,  stated  that  he  concurred  in  that  doubt.  He 
therefore  laid  the  grievance  of  South  Carolina  upon  the  failure  of  the  indi 
vidual  Northern  states  to  fulfill  their  constitutional  obligations.  It  was  not 
the  Federal  Government,  he  said,  which  had  failed  to  perform  its  duty  in  this 
regard.  He  intimated  his  disapprobation  of  the  attempt  of  Congress  to  do 
what  was  solely  incumbent  on  the  states. 

On  the  2 ist  of  December,  Messrs.  Barnwell,  Adams,  and  Orr  were 
elected  and  constituted  a  commission  to  proceed  to  Washington.  Their  pur 
pose  was  to  negotiate  the  terms  of  a  cession  of  the  forts,  arsenals,  and  other 
public  property  within  the  limits  of  South  Carolina.  They  were  to  settle  the 
terms  of  peace  and  amity  between  the  two  independent  republics.  Com 
missioners  were  also  sent  to  the  other  Southern  States,  to  propose  a  Southern 
Congress.  On  Jan.  4,  1861,  the  convention  elected  delegates  to  the  pro 
posed  Congress.  Thus  South  Carolina  attempted  to  pass  out  of  the  Union. 


GEORGIA  FOLLOWS  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  Ill 

The  Legislature  of  Georgia  met  on  Nov.  8,  1860.  On  the  i8th,  it  passed 
an  act  authorizing  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  state  convention.  The 
election  took  place.  The  delegates  chosen  met  on  the  i^th  of  January,  1861. 
On  the  1 8th,  a  resolution  was  adopted  declaring  secession  to  be  a  right  and 
duty.  On  the  I9th,  the  ordinance  of  secession  was  adopted,  by  yeas  208, 
nays  89.  The  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  withdrew  on  the 
2 1  st.  On  the  24th,  delegates  were  elected  to  the  Southern  Congress  at  Mont 
gomery.  Commissioners  were  sent  to  the  other  slave-holding  states,  on  the 
28th,  charged  with  the  duty  of  securing  concerted  action  ;  and  on  the  29th,  an 
address  to  the  South  and  to  the  world  was  adopted.  After  a  recess,  the  con 
vention  met  again  in  March.  The  delegates  ratified  the  Confederate  States 
Constitution,  and  authorized  the  Confederate  Government  to  take  possession 
of  the  forts,  arsenals,  and  other  property  of  the  United  States  which  had 
been  seized  by  the  state  authorities.  On  the  26th  of  April,  Governor  Brown 
issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  the  payment  of  debts  to  northern  creditors. 
He  called  on  the  people  to  pay  these  debts  into  the  state  treasury. 

Foremost  among  the  men  of  Georgia  who  opposed  secession,  was  the 
late  Alexander  H.  Stephens.  In  an  address  to  the  legislature,  on  Nov.  14, 
1860,  he  said  with  emphasis,  that  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  justify 
secession  ;  that  secession,  on  account  of  the  legal  election  of  a  President, 
would  place  the  South  in  the  wrong ;  that  the  House  of  Representatives  was 
largely  against  the  new  President ;  and  that  in  the  Senate  there  was  a  ma 
jority  of  four  against  him.  The  speaker  proceeded  to  state  that  the  Presi 
dent  could  not  form  his  Cabinet,  nor  appoint  a  public  officer,  without  the  con 
sent  of  the  Senate.  "  Where,"  said  he,  "  will  you  go,  following  the  sun  in 
its  circuit  round  the  globe,  to  find  a  government  that  better  protects  the  liber 
ties  of  its  people,  and  secures  to  them  the  blessings  we  enjoy?  I  think 
that  one  of  the  evils  that  beset  us  is  a  surfeit  of  liberty,  an  exuberance  of  the 
priceless  blessings  for  which  we  are  ungrateful." 

In  the  same  speech  Mr.  Stephens  replied  to  a  speech  of  Mr.  Toombs,  who 
had  spoken  on  the  previous  day.  The  government  of  the  United  States  had 
then  been  arraigned  by  Mr.  Toombs  on  the  charge  of  having  taxed  the  South 
in  order  to  pay  bounties  to  northern  fishermen.  These  bounties  had  subsisted 
under  forty-eight  years  of  Southern  Presidential  rule.  The  bounties  had 
served  to  train  sailors  to  fight  the  battles  of  the  country.  The  tariff  and  navi 
gation  laws  were  grievances  dwelt  upon  by  Mr.  Toombs.  He  held  that  they 
warranted  an  overthrow  of  the  government.  As  to  the  tariff,  Mr.  Stephens 
replied  that  the  duties  had  been  readjusted  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  South ; 
while  the  navigation  acts  had  originated  during  the  administration  of  a 
Southern  President. 

In  the  state  convention  Mr.  Stephens  made  an  able  and  earnest  speech 
against  secession.  His  language,  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  was  pro 
phetic.  "When,"  said  he,  "  we  and  our  posterity  shall  see  our  lovely 


112  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

South  desolated  by  the  demon  of  war,  which  this  act  of  yours  will  inevitably 
invite    and   call   forth  ;    when  our  green  fields  of  waving  harvest  shall  be 
trodden  down  by  the   murderous  soldiery  and  fiery   car  of  war  sweeping 
over  our  land  ;  our  temples  of  justice  laid  in  ashes  ;  all  the  horrors  and  deso 
lation  of  war  upon  us  ;  who  but  this  convention  will  be  held  responsible  for 
it?     And  who  but  him  who  shall  have  given  his  vote  for  this  unwise  and  ill- 
timed  measure,  as  I  honestly  think  and  believe,  shall  be  held  to  strict  account 
for  this  suicidal  act  of  the  present  generation,  and  probably  cursed  and  exe 
crated  by  posterity  for  all  coming  time,  for  the  wide  and  desolating  ruin  that 
will  inevitably  follow  this  act  you  propose  to  perpetrate  ?     What  reasons  can 
you  give  to  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  justify  it  ?     What  right  has  the  North 
assailed  ?     What  interest  of  the  South  has  been  invaded  ?     What  justice  has 
been   denied?"      He  warned  the  delegates  that   "  the  last   slave  would  be 
wrenched  from  them  by  stern  military  rule,  or  by  the  vindictive  decree  of 
a  universal   emancipation,   which  may  reasonably  be  expected  to  follow." 
He  asked,  what  had  the  South  to  gain  by  withdrawing  from  the  Union? 
The  South  had  always  had  the  control  of  it,  and  could  retain  that  control 
k'  if,"  said  he,  "  we  remain  in  it,  and  are  as  united  as  we  have  been."     The 
South  had  fifty  years  of  Southern  Presidents  to  twenty-four  of  the  North  ;  and 
eighteen  of  the  twenty-nine  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  although  nearly 
four-fifths  of  the  judicial  business  had  arisen  in  the  free  states.     "  This,"  said 
he,  "  we  have  required  so  as  to  guard  against  any  interpretation  of  the  Con 
stitution  unfavorable  to  us."    The  South  had  also  twenty-four  of  the  thirty-five 
Presidents  (pro  tern.)  of  the  Senate ;  twenty-throe  of  the  thirty-five  Speak 
ers   of  the   House  of  Representatives,    while   the   North   had  all   along   a 
majority  of  population  and  Representatives.     The  South  had  fourteen  of 
the  nineteen  Attorneys-General ;   eighty-six  of  the   one  hundred  and  forty 
ministers ;   and  a  vast  majority  of  the  higher  offices  in  the  army  and  navy, 
foreign  and  civil  service,  with  two-thirds  of  the  clerical  force.     Mr.  Stephens 
pointed  to  the  facts  that  more  than  three-fourths  of  the  revenue  for  the  sup 
port  of  the  government  had  been  raised  in  the  Northern  states  ;  that  in  the 
free  states  the  expenditure  for  the  support  of  the  Post-Office  Department, 
for  the  year  1860,  was  $13,000,000,  and  that  the  income  of  the  department 
in  those  states  was  $19,000,000, —  showing  an  excess  of  revenue  amounting 
to  $6,000,000.     The  expenditure  by  the  department  in  the  Southern  States 
was  $14,716,000,  while  the  postal  revenue  in  those  states  was  only  $8,001,- 
026, —  leaving  a  deficit  of  $6,714,974. 

Mr.  Stephens  concluded  with  the  remark,  that  he  regarded  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  as  "the  best  and  freest  government  —  the  most 
equal  in  its  rights,  the  most  just  in  its  decisions,  the  most  lenient  in  its  meas 
ures,  and  the  most  aspiring  in  its  principles  to  elevate  the  race  of  men  that 
the  sun  of  heaven  ever  shone  upon."  He  declared  the  attempt  to  overthrow 
such  a  government  to  be  the  height  of  folly,  madness,  and  wickedness,  to 


MR.  STEPHENS'  REQUEST  OF  THE  AUTHOR.  113 

which  he  could  neither  lend  his  sanction  nor  his  vote.  The  appeal  was  all  in 
vain.  This  array  of  facts  and  arguments  failed  to  arrest  the  tide  of  secession. 
The  ordinance  was  voted  for  finally,  nearly  three  to  one. 

Alexander  H.  Stephens  was  a  great  figure  in  the  eye  of  the  Nation.  Dur 
ing  the  old  contests  between  the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties,  he  was  a 
staunch  Whig.  As  time  wore  on,  the  Republican  party  arose  and  he  became 
a  Democrat,  along  with  his  friend,  Robert  Toombs.  He  was  called  by  his  host 
of  admirers,  "  the  Georgia  commoner."  His  home  was  called  "Liberty  Hall." 
He  was  never  married,  owing  perhaps  to  his  physical  decrepitude.  He  was 
a  man  of  singular  appearance,  being  almost  like  a  skeleton.  Toward  the 
end  of  his  life  he  was  wheeled  in  and  out,  to  and  from  his  seat  in  Congress, 
upon  a  chair  from  which  he  made  some  of  his  ringing  congressional  speeches, 
even  at  the  end  of  his  career.  In  early  life  his  spare  figure  was  erect  and 
his  dark  hair  unfrosted.  At  the  end  of  the  war  he  was  imprisoned  in  Fort 
Warren.  On  his  release  he  sent  for  the  writer  who,  being  then  a  citizen  of 
New-York,  renewed  the  old  acquaintance  which  had  begun  in  Congress  as 
early  as  1857.  Mr.  Stephens  was  the  contemporary  and  friend  of  such 
men  as  Herschel  V.  Johnson,  William  H.  Crawford,  Charles  J.  Jenkins, 
Joseph  Henry  Lumpkin,  and  was  a  brother  of  Judge  Linton  Stephens.  He 
was  the  author  of  two  volumes  connected  with  the  war,  entitled  The  War 
Between  The  States.  They  are  written  in  a  lucid  but  colloquial  style, 
after  the  manner  of  the  Imaginary  Conversations  of  Walter  Savage  Lan- 
dor,  yet  they  lack  that  cogency  which  belongs  to  his  speeches,  and  have 
more  discursiveness  than  properly  belongs  to  interesting  narrative. 

Frequently,  during  his  service  in  Congress  after  the  war,  he  was  enfee 
bled,  and  remained  at  his  room,  or  in  his  bed  ;  but,  for  a  chronic  invalid,  he 
was  the  most  remarkable  that  "  e'er  wore  earth  about  him."  His  patience, 
in  spite  of  pain,  was  remarkable.  His  good  humor  was  ever  refreshing. 
He  was  as  kindly  a  man  as  could  be  met  in  politics  or  in  any  sphere.  He  as 
sisted  the  poor  and  ambitious  scholar  with  his  purse,  and  the  poorest  negro 
boy  had  his  helpful  advice  and  kindly  offices.  Upon  one  of  the  occasions 
when  he  was  lying  discouraged  and  ill  at  his  room  in  the  National  Hotel,  ex 
pecting  to  die,  he  sent  for  the  writer.  He  was  surrounded  by  friends,  who 
looked  disconsolate.  Mrs.  Coleman,  the  daughter  of  John  J.  Crittenden, 
was  ministering  to  him,  as  it  was  thought,  in  his  last  illness.  After  taking 
the  hand  which  now  writes  these  lines,  he  turned  over  with  a  pleasant  smile, 
and  said  :  "  I  have  read  your  eulogy  on  Speaker  Kerr.  I  sent  for  you  to  make 
a  request  —  a  last  request.  Will  you  promise  to  deliver  my  eulogy  when  I  am 
gone?"  I  promptly  caught  his  compliment  and  smile,  and  said  :  "  I  would 
like  you  to  promise  me  one  thing  ;  and  that  is  to  make  my  eulogy  ;  you  will 
be  the  survivor."  Turning  quietly  to  Mrs.  Coleman,  he  said:  "Well,  he 
will  always  have  his  little  joke,"  and  he  promised  to  be  my  eulogist.  He 
got  well. 


114  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

At  the  end  of  his  service  in  Congress,  he  was  elected  governor  of  Geor 
gia.  He  was  not,  in  one  sense,  a  consistent  Democrat,  as  men  regard  consist 
ency.  He  frequently  had  individual  and  independent  opinions  of  men  and 
measures.  No  one  could  be  more  independent  than  he  was  before  the  legis 
lature  and  the  Confederate  convention  of  Georgia,  when  he  made  his  great 
speeches  against  secession  and  in  favor  of  the  Union.  In  his  book  he  prints  a 
fac  simile  of  a  letter  written  by  Abraham  Lincoln  on  the  3oth  of  November, 
1860,  in  which  the  then  President-elect  says  :  u  I  have  read  in  the  newspaper 
your  speech  recently  delivered  before  the  Georgia  Legislature  or  its  assembled 
members.  If  you  have  revised  it,  as  is  probable,  I  shall  be  much  obliged  if 
you  will  send  me  a  copy."  Thereupon,  there  began  a  correspondence  be 
tween  these  gentlemen  who  had  served  together  on  the  same  committee  in 
Congress,  in  which  Mr.  Lincoln  undertook  to  strengthen  the  Union  senti 
ment  of  Mr.  Stephens  by  saying  in  the  conclusion  of  one  of  his  letters  : 
"  You  think  slavery  is  right  and  ought  to  be  extended,  while  we  think  it  is 
wrong  and  ought  to  be  restricted.  That,  I  suppose,  is  the  rule.  It  certainly 
is  the  only  substantial  difference  between  us."  Mr.  Stephens  held  that  that 
difference  was  not  a  sufficient  cause  for  war,  and  he  dilated  upon  it  with  such 
fervor,  spirit,  and  patriotism  that  he  almost  persuaded  Georgia  to  halt  before 
giving  its  consent  to  secession. 

The  Legislature  of  Mississippi  met  on  the  26th  of  November,  1860.  A 
convention  was  called,  and  the  election  of  delegates  fixed  for  December  20. 
They  assembled  Jan.  7,  1861.  On  the  9th,  an  ordinance  of  secession  was 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  84  to  15.  The  minority,  on  the  next  day,  signed  the 
ordinance.  It  was  thus  made  unanimous.  The  ordinance  declared  for  in 
dependence.  It  expressed  a  readiness  to  form  a  Southern  confederacy,  on 
the  basis  of  the  old  Constitution.  A  committee  was  appointed  with  reference 
to  the  subject.  It  recommended  a  provisional  government.  On  the  3oth  of 
March,  the  convention  ratified  the  Confederate  Constitution.  The  Represent 
atives  in  Congress  resigned  on  the  I2th  of  January.  Albert  G.  Brown,  one 
of  the  Senators,  resigned  on  the  I4th,  and  Jefferson  Davis  on  the  2ist. 

Mr.  Davis  may  be  regarded  as  the  exponent,  then,  of  the  sentiments  and 
purposes  of  the  State  of  Mississippi,  and  of  the  South.  He  was  a  member 
of  the  Senate  Committee  of  Thirteen,  in  December,  1860.  He  submitted  a 
proposition  in  that  committee,  that  it  be  declared,  by  amendment  of  the 
Constitution,  that  property  in  slaves,  recognized  as  such  by  the  local  laws 
of  any  of  the  states  in  the  Union,  shall  stand  on  the  same  footing  in  all  con 
stitutional  and  Federal  relations  as  any  other  species  of  property  so  recog 
nized,  and  like  other  property  shall  not  be  subject  to  be  diverted  or  impaired 
by  the  local  law  of  any  other  state,  either  in  escape  thereto,  or  of  transit  or 
sojourn  of  the  owner  therein.  He  held  that  in  no  case  whatever  should  such 
property  be  subject  to  be  diverted  or  impaired  by  any  legislative  act  of  the 
United  States  or  any  of  the  territories  thereof.  This  proposition,  which 


THE  GULF  STATES  SECEDE. 

would  have  introduced  slavery  into  the  free  states,  was  not  agreed  to  — 
yeas  6,  nays  6.  Messrs.  Rice,  of  Minnesota,  and  Bigler,  of  Pennsylvania, 
voted  with  Messrs.  Davis,  Hunter,  Powell  of  Kentucky,  and  Toombs,  in  its 
favor.  Mr.  Crittenden  voted  with  the  Northern  Senators,  Messrs.  Collamer, 
Doolittle,  Grimes,  Seward,  and  Wade,  against  it.  Mr.  Douglas  withheld  his 
vote,  or  was  not  present.  Slavery,  therefore,  was  the  sole  ground  of  con 
troversy,  in  the  estimation  of  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis,  in  December,  1860.  But, 
like  many  other  Southern  men,  in  the  progress  of  the  struggle  he  seems  to 
have  subordinated  slavery  to  the  question  of  Southern  independence. 

The  Legislature  of  Florida  assembled  Nov.  26,  1860.  Gov.  M.  S.  Perry, 
in  his  message,  recommended  the  call  of  a  convention,  and  the  immediate 
secession  of  the  state.  A  convention  was  called  on  the  first  day  of  Decem 
ber.  The  delegates  were  elected,  and  the  body  met  on  the  3d  of  January, 
1861.  On  the  loth,  an  ordinance  of  secession  was  passed  by  yeas  62,  nays 
7.  On  the  1 8th,  delegates  were  appointed  to  the  Southern  Congress  at  Mont 
gomery.  On  the  2ist,  the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  the  state  with 
drew  from  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  The  legislature,  on  the  I4th 
of  March,  passed  an  act  defining  treason.  It  declared  that  holding  office  by 
a  citizen  of  Florida  under  the  Federal  Government,  after  an  act  of  collision 
between  the  state  and  Federal  forces,  would  be  treason. 

The  Legislature  of  Louisiana  met  on  the  tenth  day  of  December,  1860. 
On  the  following  day  a  convention  bill  was  passed.  The  delegates  elected 
were  to  assemble  on  the  23d  of  January,  1861.  That  body  assembled  ac 
cordingly,  and  on  the  25th  an  ordinance  of  secession  was  passed  by  yeas 
113,  nays  17.  By  a  vote  of  84  to  45,  the  convention  refused  to  submit  the 
ordinance  to  the  popular  vote  for  ratification.  The  Senators  in  Congress 
withdrew  on  the  5th  of  February  ;  and  the  Representatives,  except  Mr.  Bou- 
ligney,  withdrew  on  the  same  day.  Pilots  were  prohibited  from  bringing 
United  States  vessels  into  the  Mississippi.  The  convention,  on  March  7th, 
adopted  an  ordinance  in  secret  session.  By  it,  the  specie  in  the  United 
States  mint  was  transferred  to  the  Confederate  States  Government.  The 
amount  was  $536,000.  On  the  i6th,  a  proposition  to  submit  the  Confederate 
States  Constitution  to  the  popular  vote  was  rejected — yeas  26,  nays  74. 
That  constitution  was  ratified  in  the  convention  by  yeas  101,  nays  7.  The 
governor  was  authorized  to  turn  over  to  the  Confederate  Government  all 
public  property  of  the  United  States  which  had  been  seized  by  the  state 
authorities.  The  convention  adjourned,  sine  die,  on  the  27th  of  March. 

The  Legislature  of  Alabama  ordered  an  election  to  take  place  Dec.  24, 
1860,  for  delegates  to  a  state  convention.  The  election  was  accordingly 
held,  and  resulted  in  favor  of  the  secessionists,  by  50,000  majority.  The 
convention  met  January  7.  On  the  same  day  the  delegation  from  the  state 
in  Congress  sent  a  dispatch  to  the  convention  advising  immediate  secession, 
as  they  saw  no  prospect  of  a  satisfactory  adjustment.  On  the  8th,  an  organ- 


Il6  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ization  was  effected.  On  the  nth,  a  secession  ordinance  was  adopted  in 
secret  session.  The  vote  was  61  yeas  to  39  nays.  A  proposition  to  submit 
the  ordinance  to  the  popular  vote  for  ratification  was  defeated.  The  vote 
was  —  yeas  47,  nays  53.  The  legislature,  on  the  I9th  of  January,  chose 
delegates  to  the  Confederate  Congress.  On  the  2ist,  the  Representatives 
and  Senators  in  the  United  States  Congress  withdrew  from  that  body. 
Commissioners  were  chosen  on  the  26th,  to  treat  with  the  United  States 
Government  for  the  surrender  of  the  forts,  arsenals,  and  other  public  property 
within  the  state.  The  convention  adopted  a  resolution  requesting  the  people 
of  each  of  the  seceding  states  to  send  delegates  to  Montgomery  on  February 
the  4th,  to  consult  upon  the  most  effectual  mode  of  securing  harmonious  action 
in  measures  for  their  common  peace  and  security.  Commissioners  were  sent  to 
the  other  slave-holding  states.  After  a  recess  the  convention  reassembled  on 
the  4th  of  March.  On  the  i3th  of  that  month,  the  Confederate  States  Con 
stitution  was  ratified  by  a  vote  of  87  to  6.  The  convention  passed  an  ordi 
nance  transferring  the  United  States  forts  and  arsenals  to  the  Confederate 
Government.  The  vote  in  the  convention  upon  the  ordinance  of  secession 
shows  that  the  people  of  Alabama  were  far  from  unanimous  on  that  question. 

The  convention  in  Texas  which  passed  the  secession  ordinance,  was 
constituted  without  the  formalities  of  law.  It  was  therefore  a  revolutionary 
body.  Its  members  were  chosen  in  the  primary  meetings  of  the  people,  by 
concerted  agreement  throughout  the  state.  On  the  28th  of  January,  1861, 
they  assembled.  They  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  an  ordinance  of 
secession.  The  Governor,  Samuel  Houston,  was  opposed  to  secession. 
He  resisted  the  movement  to  the  utmost  of  his  power.  The  sessions  of 
the  legislature  were  biennial  under  the  constitution,  and  that  body  could 
not  meet  until  the  autumn  or  winter  of  1861,  except  on  the  call  of  the  gov 
ernor.  For  some  time  the  hero  of  San  Jacinto  held  out  against  the  popular 
frenzy  ;  but  at  length  he  yielded.  He  issued  a  proclamation  convening  the 
legislature,  on  the  twenty -first  day  of  January.  That  body  promptly  recog 
nized  the  voluntary  convention  as  legal.  On  the  first  day  of  February,  the 
ordinance  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  166  to  7*  On  the  7th  of  February,  the 
convention  decided  to  submit  the  ordinance  to  the  vote  of  the  people  for  rati 
fication.  The  election  took  place  on  the  23d.  It  resulted  in  a  majority  of 
three  to  one,  in  its  favor.  The  vote  was,  34,794  for,  and  11,235  against  se 
cession.  In  conforming  with  this  vote,  the  convention,  on  March  4,  declared 
the  state  independent  and  out  of  the  Union.  Governor  Houston  endeavored 
to  regain  public  confidence  by  negotiations  with  General  Twiggs  for  the  sur 
render  of  the  forts  and  public  property,  but  he  was  ruthlessly  thrown  aside. 

The  Texas  ordinance  sets  forth  that  the  Federal  Government  had  failed  to 
accomplish  the  purposes  of  the  compact  of  the  Union  between  the  states  by  not 
giving  protection  either  to  the  persons  of  the  people  upon  an  exposed  frontier, 
or  to  the  property  of  the  citizens.  It  recites  the  action  of  the  Northern  states 


THE  SOUTHERN  CONFEDERACY  FORMED. 

as  violative  of  the  compact  between  the  states  and  the  guarantees  of  the  Con 
stitution.  "  Recent  developments  in  Federal  affairs  make  it  evident,"  it  says, 
* '  that  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government  is  sought  to  be  made  a  weapon 
with  which  to  strike  down  the  interests  and  property  of  the  people  of  Texas 
and  her  sister  slave-holding  states,  instead  of  permitting  it  to  be,  as  was  in 
tended,  our  shield  against  outrage  and  aggression."  It  will  be  noticed  that 
the  convention  of  Texas  alleges,  as  the  first  cause  justifying  a  separation 
from  the  Union,  the  alleged  failure  of  the  National  Government  to  protect 
the  people  of  the  state  against  the  Indians  or  the  Mexicans.  The  remaining 
ground  of  secession  is  the  nullification  of  the  fugitive-slave  act  by  i he  Nor 
thern  states.  The  "  recent  development  in  Federal  affairs"  probably  refers 
to  the  election  of  a  Republican  President  by  a  constitutional  majority. 

The  Southern  Confederacy  was  formed  by  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and 
the  four  gulf  States, — Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  and  Florida,  —  in 
February,  1861.  The  delegates  chosen  by  the  state  conventions  assembled  at 
Montgomery,  Alabama,  on  the  fourth  day  of  that  month.  On  the  8th,  a  pro 
visional  constitution  and  government  were  agreed  to,  by  a  unanimous  vote 
of  the  convention.  The  permanent  constitution,  adopted  some  weeks  later, 
was  modeled  on  that  of  the  United  States,  but  it  contains  some  material 
variances.  The  initial  words  of  the  preamble,  "We  the  people"  of  the 
Confederate  States,  are  qualified  by  inserting,  "each  state  acting  in  its  sov 
ereign  and  independent  character."  The  words  "  provide  for  the  common 
defense  and  promote  the  general  welfare,"  are  omitted. 

The  second  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  United  States  Constitution 
simply  provides  that  the  electors  in  each  state,  in  choosing  members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  shall  have  the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors 
of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  state  legislature.  The  Confederate 
Constitution,  in  addition  to  these  words,  provides  that  the  electors  in  each 
state  shall  be  citizens  of  the  Confederate  States  ;  and  further,  that  "  no  per 
son  of  foreign  birth,  not  a  citizen  of  the  Confederate  States,  shall  be  allowed 
to  vote  for  any  officer,  civil  or  political,  state  or  Federal."  This  was  an  im 
portant  change  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  it  stood  at  that 
time.  The  latter  left  the  whole  question  of  suffrage  to  the  states.  But  the 
Confederate  States  Constitution,  though  spoken  of  by  its  framers  as  a  mere 
compact  or  league  between  sovereign  states,  assumed  the  high  prerogative  of 
declaring  who  should  vote,  and  who  should  not  vote,  not  merely  for  Con 
federate  congressmen,  but  for  officers  of  the  sovereign  states.  This  was  a 
stride  toward  centralization  which  went  far  beyond  that  of  our  Fifteenth 
Amendment.  That  amendment  merely  establishes  uniformity  of  political 
rights,  but  it  does  not  attempt  to  grant  the  franchise  to  any  citizen. 

In  the  United  States  Constitution,  the  words  slave  and  slavery  are  not  to 
be  found.  Mr.  Madison,  in  the  debates  in  the  convention  at  Philadelphia  in 
1787,  said  he  "  thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the  Constitution  the  idea  thai 


Il8  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

there  could  be  property  in  men."  It  was  this  sentiment,  which  pervaded  that 
body,  that  caused  the  evasive  circumlocution  to  be  resorted  to  in  apportion 
ing  representation  and  taxation,  and  in  providing  that  "  persons  held  to  ser 
vice  or  labor,"  and  escaping  into  other  states,  shall  be  delivered  up.  The 
same  eminent  Virginian  strongly  opposed  the  clause  which  tolerated  until 
the  year  1808,  the  "  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the 
states  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit."  He  said  that  so  long  a 
term  would  be  more  dishonorable  to  the  American  character  than  to  say 
nothing  about  it  in  the  Constitution.  But  the  framers  of  the  Confederate 
Constitution  were  embarrassed  by  none  of  these  scruples.  They  prohibited 
the  African  slave-trade.  This  was  in  deference  to  European  sentiment.  It 
was  also  domestic  policy ;  but  there  was  no  hesitation  about  the  recognition 
of  slavery,  to  nomine.  It  was  placed  on  the  basis  of  all  other  property, 
under  the  aegis  of  the  confederation. 

The  Confederate  Congress  was  given  power,  in  the  ninth  section,  to  pro 
hibit  the  importation  of  slaves  from  any  state  or  territory  not  a  member  of, 
nor  belonging  to,  the  Confederacy.  The  President  and  Vice-President  were 
to  hold  their  offices  for  six  years.  No  person  not  a  natural-born  citizen  of 
the  Confederate  States,  or  a  citizen  thereof  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  or  a  citizen  thereof  born  in  the  United  States  prior  to  the  2oth 
of  December,  1860,  was  eligible  to  the  office  of  President.  The  latter  must 
be  thirty-five  years  of  age,  and  fourteen  years  a  resident  of  the  Confederacy. 

These  are  the  principal  deviations  from  the  Constitution  of  the  Union. 

The  clause  defining  treason  is  retained  ;  and  the  sixth  article,  which  de 
clares  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  laws  and  treaties  made 
in  pursuance  thereof,  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  is  adopted,  with 
the  necessary  modification. 

The  plan  for  the  election  of  President  and  Vice-President  is  retained. 

This  constitution  was  adopted  unanimously  by  the  delegates  from  the  six 
states  above  named,  together  with  those  of  Texas,  on  March  n,  1861. 

The  delegates,  before  framing  the  permanent  Constitution,  had  adopted 
a  provisional  government,  with  a  constitution.  The  constitution  was  simi 
lar  to  that  of  the  United  States.  It  declared  the  delegates  to  be  invested 
with  legislative  powers  under  it,  until  the  permanent  government  should  be 
established.  Jefferson  Davis  and  Alexander  H.  Stephens  were  chosen  as 
provisional  President  and  Vice-President. 

The  accession  of  Arkansas,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Tennessee  to 
the  Confederacy  took  place  in  the  order  thus  named,  in  the  course  of  the 
spring  and  early  summer  of  1861. 

The  Arkansas  Legislature,  on  the  i6th  of  January,  1861,  passed  an  act 
calling  a  state  convention.  The  delegates  were  elected  on  the  i8th  of  Feb 
ruary.  They  convened  on  the  4th  of  March.  The  popular  vote  on  the 
question  of  calling  the  convention  was,  27,412  for,  and  15,826  against  it.  An 


ARKANSAS,  VIRGINIA,  AND  NORTH  CAROLINA.  119 

ordinance  of  secession  was  introduced  and  discussed.  On  the  iSth  of  March, 
it  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  yeas  35,  nays  39.  It  was  then  agreed  to  submit 
the  question  of  secession  to  the  vote  of  the  people  on  August  ist.  But  before 
that  day  arrived,  namely,  on  May  6,  the  convention  reconsidered  and  passed 
the  ordinance  by  yeas  69,  nays  i .  Delegates  had  been  sent  to  the  Provisional 
Congress,  at  Montgomery.  The  convention  now  authorized  them  to  transfer 
the  United  States  Arsenal  at  Little  Rock,  and  the  Marine  Hospital  at  Napo 
leon,  to  the  Confederate  Government. 

The  preamble  to  the  secession  ordinance  shows  that  the  Arkansas  Con 
vention  was  moved  to  its  adoption,  not  by  the  original  causes  which  in 
spired  the  movement ;  but  by  the  fact  that  President  Lincoln  had  issued  a 
proclamation  calling  for  seventy-five  thousand  troops  to  suppress  the  Rebel 
lion. 

The  Virginia  Legislature  met  in  extra  session  on  the  7th  of  January, 
1861.  On  the  following  day  it  passed  a  joint  resolution.  This  resolution 
denied  the  right  of  the  general  government  to  coerce  a  state.  On  the  i3th 
of  the  same  month,  an  act  was  passed  calling  a  state  convention.  The  elec 
tion  was  held  on  the  4th  of  February.  At  the  same  election  the  question 
was  referred  to  the  people,  whether  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  the 
proposed  convention  should  be  submitted  to  them  for  ratification  or  rejection. 
It  was  decided  in  favor  of  submission,  by  a  majority  of  55,000.  The  con 
vention  met  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  February.  After  deliberating  two 
months,  it  passed  a  secession  ordinance  in  secret  session  on  the  i7th  of 
April.  The  yeas  were  88  ;  the  nays  55.  The  vote  of  the  people  upon  the 
ordinance  was  cast  in  the  latter  part  of  May ;  but  on  the  adoption  of  the 
ordinance  by  the  convention,  the  Confederate  Constitution  was  ratified.  The 
Governor,  John  Letcher,  issued  a  proclamation  announcing  the  accession  of 
Virginia  to  the  Confederacy.  Immediately  after  the  ordinance  of  secession 
passed,  a  military  league  was  formed  by  the  convention,  in  the  name  of  the 
people  of  Virginia,  with  the  "Confederate  States  of  the  South."  By  this 
treaty  the  latter  were  bound  to  march  to  the  aid  of  Virginia  against  the  in 
vasion  of  the  Federal  Government. 

A  large  majority  of  the  people  of  North  Carolina  were  opposed  to  seces 
sion.  They  did  not  regard  it  as  a  constitutional  right.  They  were  equally 
opposed  to  a  separation  from  the  Union  in  resentment  of  the  election  of  Mr. 
Lincoln.  But  the  Governor,  John  W.  Ellis,  was  in  full  sympathy  with  the 
secessionists.  He  spared  no  pains  to  bring  the  state  into  line  with  South 
Carolina.  The  legislature  met  on  the  2oth  of  November.  The  governor, 
in  his  message,  recommended  that  the  legislature  should  invite  a  conference 
with  the  Southern  States,  or  send  delegates  to  them  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  their  co-operation.  He  also  recommended  the  reorganization  of 
the  militia,  and  the  call  of  a  state  convention.  Bills  were  introduced  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  these  measures  into  effect.  The  Joint  Committee  on 


120  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Federal  Relations  reported  a  convention  bill,  but  it  was  not  acted  upon.  An 
appropriation  of  $300,000  for  organizing  and  arming  the  militia  was  adopted 
in  the  Senate,  but  it  failed  to  be  acted  on  in  the  House  of  Commons.  On  the 
22d  of  December,  the  legislature  took  a  recess  until  the  7th  of  January.  By 
that  time  the  excitement  had  grown.  On  January  the  Sth,  the  Militia  bill 
was  adopted  in  the  Commons. 

On  the  3Oth  of  January,  a  bill  for  calling  a  state  convention  was  passed. 
It  provided  that  no  secession  ordinance,  nor  one  connecting  the  state  with  the 
Southern  Confederacy,  would  be  valid  until  it  should  be  ratified  by  a  majority 
of  the  qualified  voters  of  the  state.  The  vote  of  the  people  was  appointed 
to  take  place  on  the  28th  of  February.  The  delegates  were  elected  on 
the  day  named.  A  large  majority  of  them  were  Unionists.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  the  convention  itself  was  voted  down.  The  vote  for  a  convention  was 
46,671  ;  against  a  convention,  47,333.  The  majority  against  it  was  662. 
This  majority  against  a  convention,  however,  was  no  criterion  of  popular 
sentiment  in  regard  to  secession.  The  true  test  was  the  votes  received, 
respectively,  by  the  Union  and  secession  delegates.  The  former  received  a 
majority  of  nearly  thirty  thousand.  But  the  indefatigable  governor  was  not 
to  be  balked  by  the  popular  dislike  for  secession.  The  legislature  was  called 
together  in  extra  session  on  May  i .  On  the  same  day  they  voted  to  have 
another  election  for  delegates  to  a  state  convention  on  the  I3th  of  the  month. 
The  election  took  place  accordingly,  and  the  delegates  convened  on  the  2Oth. 
On  the  following  day  the  secession  ordinance  was  adopted,  and  the  Confed 
erate  Constitution  ratified.  To  save  time,  and  avoid  further  obstructions,  the 
question  of  popular  approval  was  taken  for  granted.  On  the  5th  of  June, 
an  ordinance  was  passed  for  transferring  the  United  States  Arsenal  at  Fay- 
etteville  to  the  Confederate  Government. 

The  Legislature  of  Tennessee  met  on  the  6th  of  January.  On  the  I2th,  a 
bill  for  the  calling  of  a  state  convention  was  passed.  It  was  passed  subject 
to  the  approval  of  the  voters.  The  election  took  place  on  the  eighth  day  of 
February.  The  people  voted  against  holding  a  convention  by  67,360,  to 

54^56. 

In  disregard  of  this  vote  of  the  people,  however,  the  legislature,  on  May 
ist,  passed  a  joint  resolution  authorizing  the  governor  to  enter  into  a  military 
league  with  the  Confederate  States.  The  league  was  formed.  The  Gov 
ernor,  Isham  G.  Harris,  sent  a  message  to  the  legislature,  announcing  the 
fact.  He  stated  its  terms.  Messrs.  Gustavus  A.  Henry,  A.  O.  W.  Totten, 
and  Washington  Barrow,  on  the  part  of  the  state,  and  Hon.  H.  W.  Hilliard, 
on  the  part  of  the  Confederacy,  negotiated  the  league.  It  stipulated  that 
until  the  state  should  become  a  member  of  the  Confederacy,  "the  whole 
military  force  and  military  operations,  offensive  and  defensive,  of  said  state, 
in  the  impending  conflict  with  the  United  States,  shall  be  under  the  chief 
control  and  direction  of  the  President  of  the  Confederate  States."  It  was 


J'oiam 
El 
'\\H 


.    ~7^-' 

^Mr 


CONFEDERATE  GOVERNORS 


TENNESSEE  COMPLETES  THE  CONFEDERACY.  121 

also  agreed  that  the  state  would,  as  soon  as  it  should  join  the  Confederacy r 
turn  over  all  public  property  it  might  acquire  from  the  United  States.  The 
legislature  ratified  the  league  by  decided  majorities  of  both  branches.  These 
final  proceedings  took  place  on  the  seventh  day  of  May.  On  the  preceding 
day,  the  legislature  put  forth  a  declaration  of  independence.  It  was  sub 
mitted  to  the  votes  of  the  people  for  ratification.  This  document  waives  the 
right  of  secession,  as  follows  :  "  We,  the  people  of  the  State  of  Tennessee, 
waiving  an  expression  of  opinion  as  to  the  abstract  doctrine  of  secession, 
but  asserting  the  right,  as  a  free  and  independent  people,"  declare  that  all 
the  laws  and  ordinances  by  which  Tennessee  became  a  member  of  the  Fed 
eral  Union,  "  are  hereby  abrogated."  The  vote  for  separation  was  declared 
by  the  governor  to  be  104,019  for,  and  47,238  against  that  measure.  It 
thus  appears  that  the  Legislature  of  Tennessee,  in  declaring  the  separation 
of  the  state  from  the  Federal  Union,  placed  its  action  upon  the  ground  of 
a  revolutionary  right,  which  all  admit  to  be  inalienable,  if  the  cause  be  just. 
Upon  such  a  question  the  aggrieved  people  must  be  the  judge. 

In  nearly  all  the  seceding  states  there  were  earnest  and  rational  protests 
made  against  secession,  by  writers  and  speakers  of  intelligence  and  sagacity. 

One  of  these  trenchant  criticisms  held  that  it  was  no  answer  to  say  that 
the  new  constitutions  were  better  in  some  of  their  provisions  than  the  old. 
This  might  be,  and  in  other  respects  they  might  be  worse.  The  changes  had 
been  startling.  A  series  of  searching  questions  and  answers  thus  states  the 
opposing  view  with  cogent  vivacity  :  Was  the  purpose  to  enlarge  the  rights  of 
the  states?  They  have  been  curtailed.  Was  the  object  to  strengthen  and  ex 
tend  the  institution  of  African  slavery?  It  has  been  circumscribed,  hemmed 
in.  Was  the  object  in  setting  up  the  new  government  to  diminish  the  expenses  ? 
They  have  been  increased.  Was  the  object  to  lessen  taxation?  That  object 
has  failed  ;  for  where  the  expenditures  were  thousands,  they  will  be  millions. 
Was  the  object  in  tearing  down  the  old  government  to  secure  the  property- 
holder  ?  The  new  government  has  not  the  strength  to  protect  that  the  old  one 
had.  Was  the  object  to  enlarge  the  elective  franchise  and  expand  the  rights  of 
the  individual  members  of  society  ?  The  new  government  prescribes  a  quali 
fication  for  electors  in  a  state,  whereas  the  old  government  left  that  entirely 
with  the  states.  Was  the  object  in  demolishing  the  old  and  setting  up 
the  new  government  to  increase  the  culture  and  growth  of  cotton?  The 
heavy  expenditures  of  the  new  polity,  with  the  increase  of  taxation  conse 
quent  thereon,  will  diminish  the  laborers,  and  the  production  will  fall  off. 

The  quasi-official  and  conventional  utterances  in  the  seceding  states  had, 
apparently,  all  the  sanction  of  a  successful  revolution.  Within  the  area  of 
secession,  the  authority  of  the  United  States  was  thus  extinguished,  first  by^ 
the  action,  voluntary  or  forced,  of  conventions  representing  the  people  and 
forming  governments  for  practical  ends,  and  next  by  the  seizure  of  arsenals, 
mints,  custom  houses,  forts,  and  navy  yards.  These  acts  gave  evidence  de 


122  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

facto,  if  not  de  jure,  of  the  existence  of  new  governments.  Peace,  how 
ever,  was  looked  for  and  kept  until  March,  1861,  notwithstanding  the  efforts 
which  the  government  established  at  Montgomery  was  making  to  consolidate 
its  authority  in  the  seceding  states. 

No  one  except  an  actor  in  the  scenes  of  that  time  can  understand  the  in 
tense  anxiety  in  relation  to  the  first  breach  of  the  peace.  The  preliminary 
debates  in  Congress  turn  on  the  collection  of  duties,  and  the  avoidance  of 
menacing  and  irritating  measures.  Then,  Fort  Sumter  is  surrendered. 
Volunteers  are  called  for.  At  once  the  Confederate  States  become  militant 
and  powerful.  A  blockade  is  announced  by  proclamation.  Letters  of 
marque  and  reprisal  against  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  follow  a 
declaration  of  war  by  the  Confederate  Congress.  It  is  a  fight  to  the  death 
between  two  opposing  communities,  with  a  line  of  hostility  between  them. 
But  is  it  rightful  secession  or  revolution  ?  The  result  of  the  movement  will 
decide. 

When  the  special  session  of  Congress  is  called  on  July  4,  1861,  where 
are  the  representative  men  from  the  South?  Not  one  is  there  to  de 
fend  secession.  Attempts  are  made  to  limit  the  design  and  define  the  cause 
of  the  war.  The  Crittenden  resolutions  are  intended  to  keep  the  Union  para 
mount  above  all  other  concernments, —  certainly  above  those  of  slavery  and 
state  rights.  The  attempt  of  the  zealots  of  the  Republican  party  to  force 
President  Lincoln  from  his  resolution  on  this  subject  fails.  What  he  had 
written  on  the  I4th  of  December,  1860,  to  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  he 
steadily  maintains.  "Do  the  people  of  the  South,"  he  then  asked,  "  really 
entertain  fears  that  a  Republican  Administration  would  directly  or  indi 
rectly  interfere  with  the  slaves  ? "  He  assures  Mr.  Stephens  that  the  South 
would  be  in  no  more  danger  in  this  respect  than  they  were  in  the  time 
of  Washington. 

Resolutions  pass  both  houses  of  Congress  affirming  the  autonomy  of  the 
United  States  and  declaring  for  its  maintenance.  They  place  the  Union  above 
all  other  objects,  and  when  that  is  made  secure  the  war  is  to  end.  But  with 
the  lapse  of  time  the  war  goes  on.  The  Democratic  members  of  Congress 
again  and  again  challenge  debate  in  relation  to  the  object  of  the  war.  The 
writer  of  this  volume  vindicated  Mr.  Lincoln's  policy  upon  th^  stump  in  Ohio, 
and  was  returned  in  1862,  in  a  strong  Republican  district,  upon  that  issue. 

One  of  the  whimsical  excesses  of  secession,  or  vicissitudes  of  the  war, 
is  the  partition  of  Virginia.  Forty  western  counties  of  Virginia  agree  to 
secede  and  form  a  new  state,  without  the  consent  of  the  old  one !  This  is 
anomalous  and  unconstitutional.  It  is  a  new  phase  of  secession,  made  by  the 
war.  It  is  vigorously  opposed,  but  in  vain.  The  first  beginnings  of  recon 
struction  thus,  and  in  the  very  midst  of  the  war,  come  out  of  this  disparting 
of  Virginia.  It  is  one  of  the  scars  made  by  the  war.  It  remains  to  com 
memorate  the  policy  of  force.  It  inevitably  led  to  the  successful  attack 
which  was  soon  to  be  made  upon  state  institutions,  including  slavery. 


THE  EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATION.  123 

On  the  ist  of  January,  1863,  after  three  months'  notice  and  much  anxious 
avoidance,  the  President  issues  his  Emancipation  Proclamation,  but  only  as  a 
war  measure,  as  he  afterward  maintained  to  the  last.  It  sets  free  the  slaves 
within  the  enemy's  lines,  as  rapidly  as  the  Federal  arms  move  to  the  front, 
or  open  a  way  for  the  fugitives  under  the  new  military  habeas  corpus.  This 
enfranchisement  continues.  But  in  the  meantime  the  President  holds  that  it 
is  for  the  courts  to  determine  the  effect  of  the  Proclamation. 

The  more  audacious  members  of  the  Republican  party,  such  as  Thaddeus 
Stevens  and  those  whom  he  led  so  vigorously,  insisted  that  the  Constitution 
was  suspended  within  the  Confederate  lines  by  an  act  of  war  and  not  by 
secession.  "  Where,"  he  exclaimed,  "is  the  constitution  of  South  Caro 
lina  ?"  "  Why  should  members  of  Congress,  or  an  Executive  in  Washing 
ton,  be  bound  by  a  constitution  that  does  not  exist  in  that  state  ? "  In  effect 
this  was  to  say  that  the  Constitution  ceased  to  exist  while  the  National 
Government  existed.  The  theory  of  Mr.  Sumner  was  not  unlike  that  of 
Mr.  Stevens.  While  he  held  that  the  outgoing  states  could  not  remove  them 
selves  from  national  jurisdiction  until  the  war  which  they  vr aged  became  suc 
cessful,  he  held  that,  in  the  meantime,  these  states  had  become  territories. 
Their  statehood  being  forever  gone,  any  conditions  might  be  prescribed  by 
Congress  for  the  admission  of  these  territories.  How  he  would  ascertain  the 
boundaries  of  these  territories,  without  admitting  some  constitutional  basis 
for  the  secession  ordinances,  neither  Mr.  Sumner  nor  any  of  his  political 
school  has  ever  attempted  to  demonstrate.  How  could  there  be  a  territory 
of  South  Carolina? 

The  doctrine  of  the  Northern  Democrats,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  in 
volved  no  such  vindictive  absurdities  as  that  of  Mr.  Stevens  and  Mr.  Sumner. 
The  Democrats  held  that  secession  was  unconstitutional,  null,  and  void. 
Therefore,  it  could  in  no  way  impair  the  vitality  of  the  Constitution. 
Secession  was  simply  a  denial  of  the  power  of  the  general  government  to 
exercise  its  Federal  functions  in  certain  states  of  the  Union.  It  was  an  insur 
rection,  no  more,  no  less ;  and  for  the  suppression  of  which  the  people  and 
the  states  of  the  Union  had  clothed  the  general  government  with  full  author 
ity  and  ample  power.  This  power  was  not  to  be  exercised  rashly  while 
peaceful  measures  might  succeed.  The  Constitution  might  be  denied  any  op 
eration  or  be  resisted  by  extremists  North  and  South,  but  would  it  be  thereby 
limited  in  its  legal  and  political  force  ?  Nothing  could  curtail  the  scope  of 
the  Constitution  except  an  absolute  and  permanent  dismemberment  of  the 
Union  of  the  states.  The  result  of  the  insurrection  could  alone  determine 
whether  South  Carolina  was  to  remain  a  state  of  the  Union,  or  to  become 
severed  from  her  Federal  bond.  If  the  general  government  should  succeed 
in  suppressing  the  insurrection,  then,  in  contemplation  of  the  Constitution  and 
the  laws  of  the  land,  her  ante  bellum  relations  to  the  Federal  Union  would 
continue.  The  fact  that  the  extent  of  the  insurrection  and  the  feelings  of  human- 


124  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ity  required  secession  to  be  suppressed  in  the  mode  of  civilized  warfare  could 
not  effect  a  political  change  in  the  Federal  system.  Such  an  effect,  in  a  case 
of  unsuccessful  revolution  was  never  conceived,  much  less  asserted,  by  any 
authority  on  the  science  of  civil  government,  until  its  violent  assumption  by 
the  radical  obstructionists  of  the  Republican  party.  They  alone  gave  their 
full  sanction  to  the  doctrine  of  secession.  Secession  drew  the  sword  and 
died  by  the  sword,  and  slavery  was  buried  with  it.  Despite  the  horrors  of  a 
protracted  civil  war,  and  the  still  more  violent  suspension  of  constitutional 
vigor  succeeding  it  under  congressional  reconstruction,  all  the  machinations 
and  devices  of  usurpers  of  power  North  and  South  failed  to  destroy  even 
one  member  of  the  Federal  body  politic.  So  firmly  fixed  in  the  American 
mind  is  the  theory  of  state  and  Federal  government,  that,  at  last,  the  people 
arose  in  their  might  and  silenced  all  disputation  over  war  results,  by  com 
manding  the  Federal  hand  to  be  withdrawn  from  the  throat  of  sovereign 
states  which  were  and  always  would  be  states  of  the  Union. 

Who  now  will  question  the  vitality  of  our  political  system  ?  What  ele 
ment  remains,  to  eat  out  the  substance,  sense,  and  virtue  of  the  people,  undo 
the  work  of  the  past,  and  dismantle  our  incomparable  system  of  govern 
ment  ?  Are  we  again  to  become  the  prey  of  mercenary  and  corrupting  officials  ? 
Nothing  can  destroy  our  system  except  when  the  greed  of  gain  struggles 
toward  the  goal  with  the  lust  of  power.  The  demoralization  of  the  public 
service  during  the  war  and  shortly  after  it,  was  to  be  expected.  But  long 
after  that  period,  great  and  honored  names  were  not  ashamed  of  association 
with  the  bribe-giver  and  bribe-taker,  and  the  reckless  and  avaricious  lobby. 

The  elements  and  conditions  which  produced  the  usurpation  of  1877  still 
exist  in  great  force.  We  have  the  same  timidity  of  wealth,  the  same  coward 
ice  of  credit,  and  the  same  tenderness  of  trade,  which  then  drowned  the  pop 
ular  will  by  clamors  for  the  revival  of  business.  The  rich  bartered  political 
rectitude  for  contentment  with  their  gains.  But  for  all  that,  are  we  to  be  rid 
of  the  rich?  Shall  there  be  no  more  bond-holders,  no  champagne  revelers, 
no  railroad  kings,  no  sleek  lobbies,  no  purchasable  news-venders,  no  mon 
eyed  princes,  no  men  of  fashionable  clubs  and  soft  attire?  These  cannot 
be  abolished.  Their  evil  influences  must  be  restrained.  The  impedimentum 
cannot  be  left  behind  in  the  campaigns  and  contests  for  freedom,  although 
it  may  hinder  the  march.  As  it  must  have  its  place  somewhere,  let  that 
place  be  far  in  the  rear  of  the  column. 

For  purity  of  public  conduct,  we  must  turn  to  the  principles  and  practice 
of  the  Union  established  by  the  fathers.  But  how  long  will  that  Union  be 
worthy  of  maintenance,  if  the  republican  form  of  government  gives  place  to  a 
plutocratic  usurpation  of  all  the  co-ordinate  branches  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment?  Has  not  wealth,  or  unscrupulous  fealty  to  corporate  power,  been  for 
many  years  the  main,  and  often,  the  all-sufficient  qualification  for  the  high 


SOME  RESULTS  OF  THE  WAR.  125 

offices  of  state  —  executive,  legislative,  and  even  judicial  ?  What  has  brought 
about  such  a  woeful,  anti-republican  condition  of  affairs  ?  Is  it  not  plainly 
the  continuance  of  the  extravagances  of  the  war  times,  when  the  foundations 
of  most  of  the  present  colossal  fortunes  were  laid  in  great  contracts  and 
cemented  with  the  blood,  tears,  and  cruel  taxations  of  the  people?  One 
would  think  that  the  American  people,  with  an  ancestry  providentially 
guided  here,  with  an  inheritance  so  splendid,  and  with  the  example  set 
them  by  the  generations  of  patriotic  men  who  have  passed  away,  would 
still  retain  the  freshness  and  purity  of  virtuous  power.  All  the  bounteous 
elements  of  sea  and  earth  and  sky  would  seem  to  beckon  business  men,  legis 
lators,  judges,  executives,  and  ministers  of  official  grace  and  honor,  away 
from  the  base  fascination  of  hoarded  pelf  which  dishonors  to  destroy  our 
institutions.  There  must  be  more  concern  for  the  national  character. 

The  recent  election  gives  hope  of  better  days  and  much  reformation. 
America  in  her  fresh  hemisphere,  in  her  first  cycle  of  unity,  with  the 
vote,  with  the  numbers,  with  the  added  wisdom  and  practical  sagacity  of  her 
people,  must  clarify  the  political  and  social  atmosphere,  and  declare  for  the 
new  order  of  administration,  else  the  light  of  her  liberties  may  be  extin 
guished.  Let  not  progress  and  poverty  march  abreast  in  this,  as  in  the  older 
hemisphere.  The  American  Republic  must  become  an  exemplar  for  all  fu 
ture  republics  which  may  be  created  by  the  achievements  of  free  men.  Now 
that  the  world  is  adapting  itself  to  new  developments  of  physical  forces  and 
moral  resources,  now  that  new  boundaries  are  being  made  between  the  na 
tions,  now  that  new  elements  are  startling  kings  and  kaisers,  and  giving  fleet 
coursers  to  civilization  by  the  vapor  of  water  and  the  spark  of  lightning,  let 
progress  and  prosperity  march  hand  in  hand  on  this  continent.  Let  us  not 
prove  recreant  to  the  demands  of  this  new  order.  National  wealth  is  not 
always  the  evidence  of  national  prosperity,  nor  does  great  industrial  progress 
always  imply  corresponding  happiness  among  those  who  develop  it.  If 
negro  slavery  was  an  unjust  appropriation  of  the  rewards  due  to  labor,  it 
behooves  the  people  to  learn  wisdom  from  the  overthrow  of  that  institution. 

Let  progress  be  in  the  paths  of  peace,  humanity,  and  justice,  and  toward 
the  advancement  of  real  liberty  and  mutual  industry.  Let  the  torch  of 
patriotism  shine  out  upon  the  shoals  and  reefs  wtiere  the  wreckers  would 
despoil  the  Ship  of  State,  so  that  free,  unbiased  as  the  winds  and  waves,  she 
may  sail  on  forever,  freighted  with  the  hopes  and  the  happiness  of  an  up 
right  people.  Let  those  who  shall  hereafter  direct  her  course,  be  as  the 
elect  of  God — yea,  even  the  salt  of  the  earth. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  FINANCES  FOR  THE  WAR  — THE  MEXICAN  WAR  FINANCES  —  THE  REVO 
LUTIONARY  WAR  FINANCES  —  STATE  AND  CONTINENTAL  BILLS  OF  CREDIT 
-  EARLY  REVENUE  RESOURCES  —  CUSTOMS,  EXCISES  AND  DIRECT  TAXES  - 
THE  CIVIL  WAR  DEBT  — THE  ISSUES  OF  BONDS  AND  TREASURY  NOTES  — 
UNITED  STATES  NOTES  -  LEGAL  TENDER  NOTES  —  DUTIES  ON  IMPORTS 
UNDER  THE  MORRILL  TARIFFS  —  THE  INTERNAL  REVENUE  SYSTEM  —  THE 
PLAN  FOR  A  NATIONAL  PAPER  CURRENCY  —  ITS  ORIGIN  AND  CONSTITU 
TIONALITY—AMERICAN  ABILITY  TO  SUSTAIN  TAXATION. 

PRIOR  to  the  war  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  the  country  had 
suffered  no  considerable  strain  upon  its  resources  for  a  period  of 
forty-five  years.  Almost  two  generations  of  men  had  come  and 
gone  since  the  government  had  found  it  necessary  to  meet  the  de 
mands  upon  the  treasury  by  a  resort  to  direct  or  internal  taxation.  The 
war  with  Mexico  had  imposed  no  such  necessity.  It  was  sufficient  for  that 
emergency  to  borrow  money  in  anticipation  of  ordinary  taxes.  We  then 
issued  some  millions  of  treasury  notes.  These  were  afterwards  funded,  or 
received  back  in  payment  of  duties  on  imports.  The  receipts  under  the 
Democratic  revenue  tariff  of  1846,  during  the  ten  years  following,  were  almost 
sufficient  to  pay  the  current  expenses  of  the  government  and  reduce  the  debt 
incurred  in  that  war  to  less  than  a  fifth  of  its  original  amount.  In  1846, 
before  the  war  commenced,  the  public  debt  was  $15,550,000.  In  1849,  ^e 
year  after  its  close,  the  debt  was  $63,000,000  ;  and  in  1851  it  had  risen,  prob 
ably  as  a  consequence  of  the  war,  to  $68,304,000.  It  may  therefore  be 
assumed  that  the  cost  of  the  Mexican  War,  over  and  above  the  current  reve 
nue  which  was  paid  out  in  that  period,  was  not  in  excess  of  $52,754,000. 
In  1857  the  public  debt  was  reduced  to  $28,700,000;  or  only  $13,149,000 
more  than  it  was  in  1846.  These  figures  afford  evidence  of  good  financial 
management. 

In  1846  it  became  necessary,  in  order  to  carry  on  the  war  with  Mexico, 
either  to  increase  the  taxes  or  borrow  money.     The  party  then  in  power,  true 


REVOLUTIONARY  WAR  FINANCES.  127 

to  its  traditions  and  policy,  preferred  the  latter  mode.  In  this  it  displayed 
wisdom.  The  resources  of  the  country  were  being  rapidly  developed,  not 
withstanding  the  apparent  embarrassments  of  the  Federal  treasury.  Popula 
tion  was  steadily  increasing.  Money  was  in  demand  in  all  the  industries, 
and  employment  was  open  for  labor  in  every  field.  Under  these  conditions, 
it  was  deemed  better  statesmanship  to  discount  the  income  of  the  future, 
which  must  grow  with  the  general  prosperity  of  the  people,  rather  than  to 
retard  enterprise  by  taxation.  Taxes,  like  governments,  are  necessary  evils. 
It  has  always  been  a  favorite  maxim  with  the  writer,  that  the  less  the  people 
have  of  either  evil,  consistently  with  the  general  welfare,  the  better  it  will  be 
for  themselves  and  their  industries.  It  is  not  to  be  understood  that  the  the 
ory  that  a  public  debt  is  a  public  blessing  is  here  admitted.  Circumstances 
will,  at  times,  render  a  mean  course  between  debt  and  taxation  the  better 
policy  ;  but  this  course  should  always  be  steered  on  a  line  where  the  indus 
tries  —  the  life-blood  of  the  nation  —  will  be  safe  from  wreck,  and  where  no 
man's  goods  shall  be  jettisoned  for  another's.  In  a  government  like  ours, 
intended  as  it  is  to  secure  to  all  citizens  equal  civil,  political,  and  industrial 
rights,  privileges,  and  opportunities,  it  must  be  apparent  to  every  one  pos 
sessed  of  sound  reason,  that  the  legislative  fostering  of  any  one  industry  or 
private  enterprise  must  correspondingly  retard  all  other  means  of  progress 
and  prosperity.  Forced  plants  are  seldom  vigorous.  Unnecessary  taxation 
is  a  burden  that  should  be  avoided.  This  is  a  Democratic  maxim  of  Federal 
administration.  Acting  on  this  maxim,  Congress,  instead  of  increasing  the 
taxes  to  carry  on  the  Mexican  War,  passed  an  act  on  July  22  ,1846,  authoriz 
ing  the  issue  of  ten  millions  in  notes,  accompanied  by  a  loan  act  at  six  per 
cent.  On  the  28th  of  January,  1847,  an  ac*  was  Passed  authorizing  the  issue 
of  twenty-three  millions  in  notes  at  six  per  cent.  This  act  was  accompanied 
by  authority  to  redeem  them  by  the  issue  of  stock  running  for  a  term  of 
years,  at  the  same  rate  of  interest.  In  March,  1848,  a  sixteen  million  loan 
was  authorized,  at  six  per  cent. 

During  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  Congress  had  no  real  fiscal  power. 
Such  as  it  had  was  dependent  upon  the  patriotism  and  good  faith  of  the 
people.  The  Congress  then  depended  on  the  states  for  the  enforcement  of 
its  ordinances.  It  had  but  little  legislative  capacity.  It  could  impose  no 
taxes.  Its  function  in  this  regard  was  but  little  more  than  a  right  to  initiate 
or  recommend  measures.  It  could  declare  how  much  money  was  necessary 
to  carry  on  the  war  during  the  ensuing  year,  and  it  could  apportion  the 
quotas  of  that  amount  among  the  states  ;  but  it  had  no  power  to  collect  them. 
If  any  state  failed  to  pay  its  quota  there  was  no  remedy  save  entreaty.  The 
military  authority  of  the  Congress  was  something  more  tangible.  The  right 
to  call  for  troops  and  to  appoint  the  commander-in-chief  and  other  officers 
carried  with  it  some  real  power  ;  but  not  such  power  as  could  be  legitimately 
used  for  the  enforcement  of  legislative  ordinances. 


128  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

This  was  a  defective  system  of  government.  The  result  was  that  the 
struggle  for  Independence  was  protracted.  The  war  was  carried  on  to  its  con 
summation  by  promises  to  pay,  rather  than  with  money.  Great  efforts  were 
made  to  borrow  from  foreigners.  The  chief  business  of  our  representatives 
abroad  was  to  negotiate  loans.  The  total  amount  of  the  loans  negotiated  by 
them  during  the  struggle  was  only  a  trifle  above  ten  millions.  It  was  stated 
by  Hamilton,  in  his  report  submitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
Jan.  14,  1790,  at  $10,070,307.  On  this  the  arrears  of  interest  amounted  to 
$1,640,071.62.  The  domestic  debt  of  the  Union,  including  $13,000,000  of 
interest  overdue,  amounted  to  $40,414,085.94.  The  debts  of  the  states  were 
assumed  to  the  amount  of  $21,500,000.  Adding  to  these  items  the  unliqui 
dated  part  of  the  domestic  debt,  which  consisted  chiefly  of  Continental  bills 
of  credit,  estimated  in  the  report  at  $2,000,000,  the  total  debt  on  the  3ist  of 
December,  1789,  was  $75,624,464.56.  The  actual  debt  a  year  later  was 
reported  at  $75,463,476.52. 

The  paper  currency  called  bills  of  credit,  issued  by  Congress  during 
the  war,  and  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  amounted  to  the  sum  of 
nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions  ;  and  the  aggregate  of  the  bills  issued 
by  the  states  amounted  to  $209,524,776.  Of  the  latter  issue  Virginia  was 
responsible  for  $128,441,000;  North  Carolina  for  $33,325,000,  and  South 
Carolina  for  $33,458,926,  thus  leaving  only  $14,299,850  for  the  other  states. 

About  half  of  the  bills  of  credit  issued  by  the  Congress  of  the  Confeder 
ation  were  redeemed  by  new  bills,  at  the  rate  of  forty  of  the  old  for  one  of 
the  new  issue.  These  last  were  assumed  to  be  at  par  with  silver,  and  were 
receivable  as  such  by  the  Congress  for  the  taxes  which  were  apportioned 
among  the  states.  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  was  in  France  much  of  the  time,  was 
mistaken  in  saying  that  "  very  little  of  the  money  [old  bills]  was  brought  in.'* 
He  states  that  in  1780  the  old  bills  had  fallen  in  value,  compared  with  silver, 
to  seventy-five  for  one,  when  they  went  out  of  circulation  north  of  the  Poto 
mac.  In  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  these  bills  continued  to  circulate  a 
year  longer.  By  that  time  they  had  fallen  to  one  thousand  to  one ;  "  and 
then,"  Mr.  Jefferson  adds,  u  the  paper  expired,  as  it  had  done  in  other  states, 
without  a  single  groan.  Not  a  murmur  was  heard  on  this  occasion  among 
the  people.  On  the  contrary,"  said  he,  "  universal  congratulations  took 
place  on  their  seeing  this  gigantic  mass,  whose  dissolution  had  threatened 
convulsions  which  should  shake  their  infant  confederacy  to  its  centre,  quietly 
interred  in  its  grave." 

The  act  of  Congress  which  authorized  the  exchange  of  the  new  for  the 
old  bills  came  near  causing  a  breach  with  the  French  government.  The 
Count  de  Vergennes  earnestly  protested  against  it.  He  authorized  the  French 
minister  to  this  government  to  remonstrate  against  its  application  to  French 
subjects  who  were  holders  of  the  old  bills.  John  Adams,  then  an  unrecog 
nized  minister,  sent  over  to  be  at  hand,  ready  to  negotiate  a  peace,  and  wait- 


REVOLUTIONARY  WAR  FINANCES.  1 29 

ing  in  Paris  for  the  opportune  moment  to  arrive,  gave  great  offence  to  the 
Count  by  defending  the  justice  and  necessity  of  the  measure.  Dr.  Franklin, 
the  resident  minister  at  the  French  court,  professed  to  concur  with  Vergennes 
that  the  repudiation  should  not  apply  to  French  subjects.  But  he  was  too 
wise  not  to  foresee  that  if  this  were  to  be  allowed,  the  effect  of  such  a  dis 
crimination  would  be  that  Frenchmen  would  buy  up  all  the  bills.  Dr. 
Franklin  communicated  to  Congress  the  fact  that  the  course  of  Mr.  Adams, 
who  had  published  his  opinions  in  a  newspaper,  had  given  offence  to  the 
French  government.  Congress  censured  Mr.  Adams  for  his  uncalled  for 
and  pertinacious  defense  of  its  ordinance  ;  but,  nevertheless,  the  ordinance 
was  adhered  to.  This  incident  was  the  cause  of  a  permanent  breach  between 
Franklin  and  Adams. 

In  order  to  pay  off  the  Revolutionary  debt,  Hamilton  devised  a  Federal 
system  of  internal  revenue.  It  consisted  of  an  excise  upon  liquors  dis 
tilled  within  the  United  States.  From  this  source,  in  the  course  of  a  dozen 
years,  about  seven  millions  were  raised.  In  1799  a  direct  tax  was  imposed 
by  Congress  upon  lands  and  houses.  This  yielded  about  two  millions  of  dol 
lars,  of  which  about  one  million  and  a  half  was  collected  in  the  three  years 
following.  But  at  this  era  the  great  and  permanent  reliance  for  a  revenue 
was  on  customs.  During  Washington's  administration  these  amounted  to 
nearly  six  millions  per  annum.  This  was  yielded  from  a  very  low  tariff. 
Before  the  close  of  Jefferson's  administration  the  revenue  from  this  source 
had  risen  to  sixteen  millions. 

The  recuperation  from  our  earlier  financial  embarrassments  was  easy  and 
rapid.  Under  the  long  sway  of  the  Democratic  party,  there  was  a  minimum 
of  restraint  by  taxation,  or  other  measures  tending  to  foster  monopolies, 
which  left  the  people  free  to  avail  themselves  of  the  rich  resources  of  the 
domain  that  their  fathers  had  won  and  bequeathed  to  them  as  an  heritage  for 
ever.  They  waxed  great  in  numbers,  and  prosperous  beyond  comparison. 
Their  fame  spread  abroad  among  the  nations.  Immigration  poured  in  upon 
them  its  waves  of  industrious  millions  to  partake  of  their  freedom  and  to 
develop  the  fatness  of  the  land.  Peace  smiled  upon  them,  and  plenty 
abounded. 

When  the  Southern  States  appealed  to  the  ultima  ratio,  the  American 
people  had  no  more  conception  of  the  financial  exploits  they  were  about  to 
perform  than  they  had  of  the  extent  and  duration  of  the  military  operations 
that  followed.  Even  their  statesmen  had  no  adequate  idea  of  the  resources 
of  this  country  for  raising  revenue.  They  had  not  imagined  that  the  United 
States  excelled  every  country  in  the  world  in  capacity  to  raise  revenue  from 
indirect  taxes.  Wherein  is  this  capacity  ?  The  answer  is  now  obvious  : 
Americans  consume  more  of  the  luxuries  of  life  than  any  other  people.  No 
one  would  have  believed  in  1860  that  in  1866,  after  four  years  of  devastating 
war,  the  people  of  this  country  could  pay  yearly  $176,000,000  in  taxes,  at 


13°  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

enormously  protective  rates,  on  foreign  goods  imported,  and  $309,000,000  in 
taxes  on  domestic  articles  consumed  ;  or  that  a  public  debt  of  $2,381 ,500,000, 
bearing  interest  to  the  amount  of  $151,000,000,  could  be  paid  off  at  the  rate 
of  $100,000,000  per  annum  ;  or  that  under  such  a  debt  the  rate  of  interest 
could  be  gradually  reduced,  by  refunding,  in  the  course  of  eighteen  yearsr 
from  five,  six,  and  seven  and  three-tenths  per  cent,  to  three  per  cent.  Yet 
all  this  has  been  accomplished.  Our  revenue,  war  debt,  and  interest  reached 
these  figures.  In  place  of  paying  interest  now  to  the  extent  of  $150,977,- 
697.87  annually,  as  in  1865,  we  pay  only  $47,926,392.50.  The  latter  sum 
was  paid  during  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1884,  upon  a  debt  reduced  to 
$1,226,563,850.  This  was  all  that  then  remained  of  the  interest-bearing; 
debt! 

The  total  debt,  Aug.  31,  1865,  less  cash  in  the  treasury,  was  $2,756,431,- 
571.43.  But  of  this  sum,  $374,901,276.47  consisted  of  United  States  notes, 
fractional  currency,  and  some  other  non-interest-bearing  obligations ;  so  that 
the  interest-bearing  debt  was  at  that  date  $2,381,530,294.96.  Of  this  sum 
there  had  been  paid  off,  up  to  June  30,  1884,  $1,154,966,444.96.  Probably 
there  will  be  some  slackening  in  the  rate  of  redemption ;  but  there  is  little 
doubt  that  at  the  end  of  the  present  fiscal  year  (1885),  more  than  half  of  the 
original  interest-bearing  debt  will  be  canceled. 

The  non-interest-bearing  debt  on  June  30,  1884,  consisted,  as  stated  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  of  the  following  items : 

Old  Demand  Notes  of  1861  and  1862,          ....  $58,440  oo 

Legal  Tender  Notes  of  1862  and  1863,        ....  346,681,01600 

Certificates  of  Deposit,  1872,       ......  12,385,000  oo 

Gold  Certificates  issued  under  Acts  of  1863  and  1882,          .  98,392,660  oo 

Silver         "             "         "         "       "   1878,         .         .         .  119,811,691  oo 

Fractional  Currency,  1862,  1863,  and  1864,         .         .         .  6,980,061  31 


Aggregate  non-interest-bearing  debt,  ....  $584,308,868  31 

To  this  sum  must  be  added         .  $19,656,205  26 

on  which  interest  had  ceased  ; 

And  for  accrued  interest,  .         .             11,507,240  41  31,163,445  67 

Making  the  total  non-interest-bearing  debt,         .       ,,  $615,472,313  98 

Adding  to  this  the  interest-bearing  debt  of  that  date,  1,226,563,850  oo 

Made  a  total  debt  of,           .          .         .         ...         .          .  $1,842,036,163  98 

Less  cash  in  the  treasury,             .         ,         .         .         .  391,985,928   18 

Shows  the  actual  debt  on  that  date  to  have  been,         .  $1,450,050,235  So 
The  $346,681,016  in  legal-tender  notes  seems  to  be  circulating  as  a  more 


THE  CIVIL  WAR  LOANS.  131 

acceptable  currency  than  gold.  These  notes  may  not  be  called  in  for  years 
to  come,  if  ever,  except  for  the  purpose  of  replacing  such  bills  as  are  worn 
out. 

There  were  many  curious  and  interesting  developments  attending  the 
vast  expansion  of  American  financial  operations  since  the  beginning  of  the 
Civil  War.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  the  greatly  increased  facil 
ity  of  borrowing,  and  the  readiness  of  foreigners  as  well  as  Americans  to 
lend  their  money  to  this  government  at  rates  of  interest  far  below  those  of 
the  ante-bellum  days,  when  the  public  debt  was  scarcely  a  twentieth  of  the 
amount  it  has  been  of  late  years.  It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  find  a  rea 
son  for  this  confidence,  to  go  back  to  an  early  date,  when  the  country  was 
sparsely  peopled  and  poor,  and  when  the  republican  form  of  government 
was  regarded  as  a  doubtful  experiment.  It  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  some  of 
the  events  which  preceded  the  late  war,  when  the  United  States  had  already 
assumed  their  acknowledged  and  exalted  place  among  the  nations  of  the 
world. 

The  financial  collapse  of  1837  caused  a  considerable  falling  off  of  im 
ports.  The  sales  of  the  public  lands  also  decreased  far  below  those  for  the 
two  preceding  years.  These  sales  and  the  customs  were  then  almost  the 
only  sources  of  revenue.  The  decrease  embarrassed  the  government.  It 
became  necessary  to  resort  to  the  issue  of  ten  millions  in  treasury  notes, 
bearing  six  per  cent,  interest.  The  act  authorizing  that  issue  was  passed 
Oct.  12,  1837.  ^n  May,  following,  it  became  necessary  to  authorize  a  re 
issue  of  the  notes.  These  temporary  loans  were  renewed  from  year  to  year, 
until  July,  1841.  Then  a  permanent  six  per  cent,  loan  was  authorized  for 
the  purpose  of  funding  the  treasury  notes,  which  ran  for  only  one  and  two 
years.  In  1842  additional  six  per  cent,  temporary  notes  were  authorized ; 
and  in  1843  provision  was  made  for  their  reissue  and  funding  at  the  same 
rate  of  interest.  The  Mexican  War  debt  followed ;  but,  as  already  shown, 
all  liabilities  were  easily  liquidated. 

Then  came  the  financial  crash  of  1857.  Like  its  predecessor  of  twenty 
years  before,  it  caused  a  falling  off  in  imports  and  revenue.  On  December 
3,  of  that  year,  Congress  authorized  the  issue  of  twenty  millions  in  treasury 
notes  at  six  per  cent.  These  were  reissued  from  year  to  year,  until  July  i, 
1860.  On  June  14,  1858,  a  twenty  million  loan  at  six  per  cent,  was  author 
ized  ;  and  the  act  of  June  22,  1860,  authorizing  a  six  per  cent,  loan  of  twenty- 
one  millions  is  traceable  to  that  crash.  It  had  no  reference  to  the  then  ap 
proaching  war.  It  was  not  preparatory  for  that  calamity,  which,  while 
feared  by  many,  could  be  known  to  no  one.  Neither  was  the  probability  of 
war  so  menacing  as  to  affect  the  public  credit.  The  offer  of  six  per  cent,  was 
only  a  conformity  to  usage  in  such  transactions.  The  loss  in  1858  and  1859 
of  revenue  from  customs  and  sales  of  public  lands  was  very  considerable, 
while  the  scale  of  expenditure,  owing  to  several  causes,  had  increased. 


I32  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Hence  the  recourse  to  loans.  The  ten  millions  of  six  per  cent,  treasury  notes 
authorized  by  the  act  of  Dec.  17,  1860,  were  called  for  by  the  same  circum 
stances. 

Three  days  after  the  passage  of  the  last  mentioned  act,  the  State  of  South 
Carolina  passed  the  secession  ordinance.  She  was  soon  followed  by  the  Gulf 
States.  Feb.  8,  1861,  another  loan  was  authorized,  not  to  exceed  twenty- 
five  millions,  in  order  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  public  service,  and  for  the 
redemption  of  the  treasury  notes  then  outstanding.  The  interest  was,  as 
usual,  restricted  to  six  per  cent.  March  2,  following,  another  act  was  passed 
authorizing  a  ten-million  loan,  at  the  same  rate  of  interest. 

The  first  great  financial  measure  of  the  war  that  ensued,  was  the  act  of  Julv 
17,  1861.  It  was  passed  at  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress, 
with  only  five  dissenting  votes  in  the  House.  It  authorized  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  —  not  the  President,  according  to  the  usual  form — to  borrow, 
on  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  within  twelve  months,  a  sum  not  exceed 
ing  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars,  or  so  much  thereof  as  he  might 
deem  necessary  for  the  public  service.  He  was  authorized  to  issue  coupon 
bonds,  registered  bonds,  or  treasury  notes,  in  such  proportions  of  each  as  he 
might  deem  advisable.  The  bonds  were  to  bear  interest  at  a  rate  not  exceed 
ing  seven  per  cent.,  payable  semi-annually.  They  were  not  redeemable  for 
twenty  years.  After  that  period  they  were  redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
United  States.  The  treasury  notes  were  authorized  to  be  of  any  denomina 
tion  fixed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  not  less  than  fifty  dollars.  They 
were  to  be  payable  three  years  after  date  of  issue,  with  interest  at  the  rate  of 
seven  and  three-tenths  per  centum  per  annum,  payable  semi-annualiy.  The 
secretary  was  also  authorized  to  issue  treasury  notes  of  less  denominations 
than  fifty  dollars,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  three  and  sixty -five  hundredths 
per  centum.  These  were  payable  one  year  after  date,  to  be  exchanged  for 
coin,  or  paid  out  for  salaries  and  other  public  dues.  This  act  conferred  upon 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  whole  direction  of  the  proceedings  necessary 
to  carry  out  its  purpose.  It  conferred  discretionary  power  in  many  cases, 
including  that  of  assigning  the  amount  of  compensation  to  be  paid  to  persons 
employed  in  receiving  the  subscriptions.  This  act  was  prepared  and  forced 
through  the  House,  with  only  one  hour  allowed  for  debate,  by  Mr.  Stevens, 
of  Pennsylvania,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means. 
The  act  of  August  5,  of  the  same  year,  authorized  the  issue  of  six  per  cent, 
twenty-year  bonds.  These  were  to  be  exchangeable  for  the  seven-thirty 
treasury  notes.  There  was  also  a  provision  for  issuing  six  per  cent,  twenty- 
year  bonds,  instead  of  the  seven  per  cent.'s  authorized  by  the  former  act. 
The  act  of  August  5  originated  in  the  Senate  and  was  supplementary  to 
that  of  July  17.  When  it  came  to  the  House,  Mr.  Stevens  moved  certain 
amendments,  some  of  which  were  adopted.  One  of  them  proposed  the 
issue  of  treasury  notes  at  nine  per  cent.  This  was  modified  so  as  to  fix  the 
.rate  of  interest  at  seven  and  three-tenths. 


THE  CIVIL  WAR  LOANS.  133 

The  act  of  Feb.  25,  1862,  laid  the  foundation  of  the  present  financial 
system  of  this  country.  It  declared  United  States  notes  a  legal  tender  for  all 
debts,  public  and  private,  and  made  them  receivable  in  payment  of  internal 
taxes.  It  established  the  sinking  fund.  It  is  one  of  the  most  important 
measures  ever  adopted  by  Congress,  or  by  any  legislative  body.  It  author 
ized  the  issue  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  in  notes  on  the  credit  of  the 
United  States,  not  bearing  any  interest,  payable  to  bearer  at  the  Treasury 
of  the  United  States,  and  of  such  denominations  as  the  secretary  might  deem 
expedient,  not,  however,  less  than  five  dollars  each.  Fifty  millions  of  these 
notes  were  intended  to  replace  the  demand  treasury  notes  authorized  by  the 
act  of  July  17,  1861.  The  amount  of  the  two  kinds  of  notes  was  not  to  ex 
ceed  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions.  These  notes  are  described  in  the  act, 
as  "  United  States  Notes,"  in  contradistinction  from  those  bearing  interest, 
which  are  in  every  act  styled  ''Treasury  Notes."  It  declares  that  these 
United  States  notes  "  shall  be  receivable  in  payment  of  all  taxes,  internal 
duties,  excises,  debts  and  demands  of  every  kind  due  to  the  United  States, 
except  duties  on  imports,  and  of  all  claims  and  demands  against  the  United 
States  of  every  kind  whatsoever,  except  for  interest  upon  bonds  and  notes, 
which  shall  be  paid  in  coin,  and  shall  also  be  lawful  money  and  a  legal  tender 
in  payment  of  all  debts,  legal  and  private,  within  the  United  States,  except 
duties  on  imports,  and  interest  as  aforesaid."  Holders  of  these  notes  might 
deposit  them  with  the  United  States  Treasurer  or  any  of  his  assistants,  and 
have  them  funded  in  bonds  of  fifty  dollars,  or  multiples  of  fifty. 

The  same  act  authorized  a  loan  of  five  hundred  millions  to  enable  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  fund  treasury  notes  and  other  floating  debts. 
The  bonds  were  to  be  either  registered  or  coupon  in  form.  They  were  to  be 
redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the  United  States  after  five  years,  and  payable 
twenty  years  from  date. 

The  fifth  section  of  the  act  required  all  duties  on  imported  goods  to  be 
paid  in  coin,  or  in  notes  payable  on  demand  theretofore  authorized  to  be  is 
sued,  and  by  law  made  receivable  in  payment  of  public  dues. 

The  coin  so  received  was  to  be  set  apart  as  a  special  fund,  to  be  applied 
as  follows : 

First.  To  the  payment  of  the  interest  on  the  bonds  and  notes  of  the 
United  States. 

Second.  To  quote  the  language  of  the  act :  "  To  the  purchase  or  pay 
ment  of  one  per  centum  of  the  entire  debt  of  the  United  States,  to  be  made 
within  each  fiscal  year  after  the  first  day  of  July,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixty- 
two,  which  is  to  be  set  apart  as  a  sinking  fund,  and  the  interest  of  which 
shall  in  like  manner  be  applied  to  the  purchase  or  payment  of  the  public 
debt  as  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  shall  from  time  to  time  direct." 

Third.     The  residue  to  be  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

Good  faith  required  that  the  demand  notes,  amounting  to  nearly  fifty  mil- 


134  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

lions,  should  be  received  for  all  taxes  and  dues.  This  necessity  would  for  a 
time  reduce  the  amount  of  specie  receivable  from  customs.  Therefore,  on 
the  1 7th  of  March,  1862,  an  act  was  passed  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  purchase  coin  with  any  of  the  bonds  or  notes  of  the  United 
States,  at  such  rates  and  upon  such  terms  as  he  might  find  expedient.  By 
the  same  act  the  demand  notes  were  made  receivable  and  a  legal  tender,  in 
like  manner  as  the  notes  authorized  by  the  act  of  Feb.  25,  1862. 

The  act  of  July  n,  1862,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to 
issue,  in  addition  to  the  amounts  theretofore  authorized,  one  hundred  and  fifty 
millions  in  United  States  notes,  legal  tender,  not  bearing  interest.  Not 
more  than  thirty-five  millions  of  these  were  to  be  of  denominations  less  than 
five  dollars ;  and  no  note  was  to  be  issued  for  the  fractional  part  of  a  dollar. 
The  Secretary  was  authorized  to  receive  these  notes  in  exchange  for  the  six 
per  cent,  bonds  authorized  by  the  act  of  Feb.  25,  1862,  which  were  redeem 
able  after  five  years  at  the  pleasure  of  the  government,  and  after  twenty  years 
at  the  pleasure  of  the  holder.  These  bonds  were,  for  convenience,  styled 
"  Five-twenty-sixes."  The  United  States  notes,  or  legal  tenders,  received 
for  such  bonds  could  be  reissued. 

On  March  3,  1863,  Congress  passed  an  act  to  provide  ways  and  means  for 
the  support  of  the  government,  which  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury  to  borrow  three  hundred  millions  of  dollars  for  the  current  fiscal  year,  and 
six  hundred  millions  for  the  year  following.  For  this  loan  h»  was  empowered 
to  issue  coupon  or  registered  bonds,  payable  in  coin  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
government  after  such  periods  as  might  be  fixed  by  the  secretary,  not  less, 
however,  than  ten  nor  more  than  forty  years  from  date.  These  bonds 
were  to  be  of  denominations  not  less  than  fifty  dollars,  and  were  to  bear 
interest  at  a  rate  not  exceeding  six  per  centum  per  annum.  They  might  be 
disposed  of  for  lawful  money, —  that  is  to  say,  legal  tender  United  States 
notes  —  for  certificates  of  indebtedness,  or  for  treasury  notes  —  that  is  to  say, 
notes  bearing  interest,  and  running  for  a  term  of  years. 

This  act  further  authorized  the  issue  of  four  hundred  millions  in  treasury 
notes,  bearing  six  per  cent,  interest  in  currency,  and  payable  within  three 
years.  They  were,  to  quote  the  language  of  the  act,  to  be  disposed  of  "on 
the  best  terms  that  could  be  obtained,"  and  were  payable  to  public  creditors 
who  were  willing  to  receive  them  at  par.  These  treasury  notes  were  made  a 
legal  tender  to  the  same  extent  as  United  States  notes  for  their  face  value, 
including  interest.  These  were  also  exchangeable  for  United  States  notes. 
The  secretary  was  authorized  to  issue  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  in 
United  States  notes,  that  is  to  say,  legal  tenders,  to  be  exchanged  for  these 
treasury  notes,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  It  is  probable  that  the  issue  of 
four  hundred  millions  in  treasury  notes  so  authorized  was  intended  for  the 
purpose  of  paying  off  the  floating  debt ;  as  some  creditors  who  had  no  im 
mediate  use  for  their  money  might  prefer  such  notes  to  legal  tenders. 


THE  CIVIL  WAR  LOANS.  135 

A  joint  resolution  of  Jan.  17,  1863,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury  to  issue  one  hundred  millions  in  legal  tenders  to  pay  off  the  army  and 
navy.  The  act  passed  on  March  3,  1863,  in  its  third  section  increased  the 
appropriation  for  this  purpose  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions.  This  act 
required  the  holders  of  United  States  notes  issued  under  the  acts  of  Feb.  25, 
1862,  and  July  n,  1862,  to  present  them  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging  them 
for  bonds,  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  July,  1863.  The  right  to  make  the 
exchange  after  that  date  would  cease.  As  heretofore  stated,  these  two  acts 
authorized  the  issue  of  three  hundred  millions.  The  effect  of  the  act  of 
March  3,  1863,  was  to  draw  in  a  large  amount  of  outstanding  treasury  notes 
which  it  was  lawful  to  reissue.  Section  four  of  this  act  authorized  the  issue 
of  fifty  millions  in  Fractional  Currency,  in  lieu  of  the  postage  and  revenue 
stamps  issued  as  currency  under  an  act  passed  July  17,  1862.  The  fifth  sec 
tion  authorized  the  deposit  of  gold  coin  and  bullion  with  the  Treasurer  or 
any  assistant  treasurer,  in  sums  not  less  than  twenty  dollars,  and  the  issue  of 
certificates  therefor  in  denominations  the  same  as  United  States  notes.  It 
authorized  the  issue  of  these  certificates  in  payment  of  the  interest  on  the 
public  debt ;  but  it  limited  the  amount  of  them  to  a  sum  not  greater  than 
twenty  per  cent,  of  the  amount  of  coin  and  bullion  in  the  treasury.  The 
certificates  were  made  receivable  in  payment  for  duties  on  imports. 

The  act  of  March  3,  1864,  which  was  supplementary  to  the  act  of  March 
3,  1863,  empowered  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  borrow,  from  time  to 
time,  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  not  exceeding  two  hundred  millions 
of  dollars  during  the  current  fiscal  year,  in  lieu  of  so  much  of  the  loan  author 
ized  by  the  last  mentioned  act,  and  to  issue  therefor  coupon  or  registered 
bonds  of  the  United  States,  bearing  date  March  i,  1864,  or  any  subsequent 
date,  redeemable  in  coin  at  the  pleasure  of  the  government  after  any  period 
not  less  than  five  years,  and  payable  at  any  period  not  more  than  forty  years 
from  date.  These  bonds  were  to  bear  interest  at  a  rate  not  exceeding  six  per 
cent.  They  might  be  disposed  of  for  lawful  money  (legal  tenders),  or,  at 
the  discretion  of  the  secretary,  for  treasury  notes,  certificates  of  indebtedness, 
or  certificates  of  deposit.  They  were  exempted  from  state  and  municipal 
taxation.  The  power  of  Congress  to  grant  this  exemption  has  been  sustained 
by  judicial  sanction. 

The  joint  resolution  of  March  17,  1864,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  anticipate  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  public  debt  by  a  period 
not  exceeding  one  year.  He  was  further  authorized  to  dispose  of  any  gold 
in  the  Treasury  not  necessary  for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  public  debt, 
if  the  obligation  to  create  the  sinking  fund  according  to  the  act  of  February, 
1862,  would  not  be  impaired  thereby. 

On  the  3Oth  of  June,  1864,  an  act  was  passed  authorizing  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  to  borrow  four  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  and  to  issue 
therefor  coupon  or  registered  bonds,  redeemable  in  coin  after  forty  years  and 


136  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

not  under  five,  and  bearing  not  exceeding  six  per  cent,  interest  in  coin. 
These  bonds  might  also  be  disposed  of  for  lawful  money,  certificates  of  in 
debtedness,  or  certificates  of  deposit.  The  secretary  might,  at  his  discretion, 
issue  in  lieu  of  an  equal  amount  of  the  bonds  so  authorized,  and  as  a  part  of 
said  loan,  not  exceeding  two  hundred  millions  of  dollars  in  treasury  notes, 
payable  at  any  time  within  three  years  ;  or,  if  thought  expedient,  redeemable 
after  three  years  from  date,  and  bearing  interest  in  lawful  money  at  the  rate 
of  seven  and  three-tenths  per  cent. 

The  act  declared,  in  respect  to  these  notes,  that — "  such  of  them  as  shall 
be  made  payable,  principal  and  interest,  at  maturity,  shall  be  a  legal  tender  to 
the  same  extent  as  United  States  notes  for  their  face  value,  excluding  interest, 
and  may  be  paid  to  any  creditor  of  the  United  States  at  their  face  value,  ex 
cluding  interest,  or  to  any  creditor  willing  to  receive  them  at  par,  including 
interest ;  and"  that  "  any  treasury  notes  issued  under  the  authority  of  this  act 
may  be  made  convertible,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
into  any  bonds  issued  under  the  authority  of  this  act."  Treasury  notes  and 
United  States  notes  issued  under  former  acts  might  be  redeemed  and  can 
celed  by  order  of  the  secretary  ;  and  he  might  substitute  for  them  the  notes 
authorized  by  this  act,  or  other  United  States  notes.  It  was  provided  that 
the  total  amount  of  bonds  and  treasury  notes  to  be  issued  should  not  exceed 
four  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  in  addition  to  the  amounts  theretofore 
issued.  The  act  further  provided  that  the  total  amount  of  United  States 
notes  (legal  tender)  issued,  or  to  be  issued,  should  never  exceed  four  hun 
dred  millions  of  dollars,  and  such  additional  sum,  not  exceeding  fifty  millions 
of  dollars,  as  might  be  temporarily  required  for  the  redemption  of  temporary 
loans.  In  addition  to  these  limitations,  the  act  provided  that  no  treasury 
note  bearing  interest  issued  under  it  would  be  a  legal  tender  in  payment  or 
redemption  of  any  notes  issued  by  any  bank,  banking  association,  or  banker, 
calculated  or  intended  to  circulate  as  money. 

The  act  of  March  3,  1865,  authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to 
borrow,  in  addition  to  the  amounts  theretofore  authorized,  any  sums  not  ex 
ceeding  in  the  aggregate  six  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  and  to  issue  there 
for  bonds  or  treasury  notes.  The  bonds  were  to  be  made  payable  at  any 
period  not  exceeding  forty  years,  and  not  less  than  five  years.  The  principal 
and  interest  of  this  issue  of  bonds  and  treasury  notes  might,  at  the  discretion 
of  the  secretary,  be  made  payable  in  coin,  or  in  other  lawful  money.  The 
rate  of  interest  in  coin  was  not  to  exceed  six  per  cent.  ;  and  when  not  paya 
ble  in  coin  it  was  not  to  exceed  seven  and  three-tenths  per  cent.  These 
bonds  and  treasury  notes  might  be  disposed  of  in  the  United  States  or  else 
where,  for  coin  or  for  lawful  money,  and  were  exempted  from  taxation  by 
state  or  municipal  authority.  This  was  the  last  act  which  authorized  a  loan, 
except  for  the  purpose  of  refunding. 

On  the  1 8th  of  March,  1869,  an  act  was  passed  "  to  strengthen  the  pub- 


INCREASING  THE  REVENUE.  137 

lie  credit."  It  solemnly  pledged  the  faith  of  the  United  States  to  the  pay 
ment  in  coin  or  its  equivalent,  of  all  the  obligations  of  the  United  States  not 
bearing  interest,  known  as  United  States  notes,  and  also  of  all  the  interest- 
bearing  obligations  of  the  United  States,  except  in  cases  where  the  law  author 
izing  the  issue  of  any  such  obligation  had  expressly  provided  that  the  same 
might  be  paid  in  lawful  money,  or  other  currency  than  gold  and  silver. 

On  the  i  zth  of  July,  1870,  an  act  was  passed  providing  that  fifty-four  mil 
lions  of  dollars  in  notes  for  circulation  might  be  issued  to  the  national  banks 
in  addition  to  the  three  hundred  millions  "  authorized  by  the  act  to  provide  a 
national  currency,  secured  by  a  pledge  of  United  States  bonds,  and  to  pro 
vide  for  the  circulation  and  redemption  thereof." 

To  provide  for  the  interest  of  the  debt  to  be  incurred  during  the  war,  as 
well  as  to  support  the  current  expenses  of  the  government,  it  was  thought 
necessary  greatly  to  increase  the  duties  on  imports. 

The  act  of  March  2,  1861,  was  passed  before  hostilities  had  commenced, 
but  after  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  the  Gulf  States  had  passed  their  ordi 
nances  of  secession.  It  was  introduced  in  the  preceding  December.  It  was 
so  quickly  superseded  by  the  act  of  August  5,  which  was  passed  at  the  extra 
session  of  the  next  Congress,  that  there  was  no  time  to  estimate  its  effects 
upon  the  revenue.  These  acts  imposed  nearly  double  the  rates  of  duty  that 
were  exacted  by  the  tariff  act  of  1857.  Tea  and  coffee  were  now  among  the 
dutiable  articles.  The  imports  during  the  fiscal  year  1861-62  fell  off  nearly 
a  hundred  millions ;  but  the  higher  duties  imposed  increased  the  revenue 
over  that  of  the  preceding  fiscal  year  by  almost  seven  and  a  half  millions. 
At  no  time  during  the  war  did  the  amount  in  value  of  the  imports  come  up 
to  the  figures  of  the  fiscal  year  i859~'6o,  notwithstanding  the  immense  sums 
of  money  that  were  being  disbursed  by  the  government.  Nevertheless, 
after  July  I,  1862,  the  receipts  from  customs  revenue  steadily  and  enormously 
increased  over  those  of  the  fiscal  year  1859-' 60.  Our  manufacturers  had  no 
reason  to  complain  of  the  financiering  that  brought  this  about.  They  fattened 
on  the  carnage.  While  it  is  true  that  labor  was  also  well  rewarded,  it  is  no 
less  true  that  reactionary  economy  fell  almost  solely  on  its  shoulders.  Whether 
Democratic  administration  will  lighten  this  burden,  remains  to  be  seen.  Bad 
management  can  alone  prevent  the  relief  that  strict  and  impartial  adherence 
to  Democratic  policy  would  bring. 

The  following  table  will  present  in  a  small  space,  the  amount  of  imports, 
the  duties  collected,  and  the  rates  of  duty,  for  the  whole  period  from  1860 
to  1870.  Duties  began  to  be  lowered  in  the  latter  year  upon  some  articles 
which  were  peculiarly  regarded  as  objects  of  war  taxes.  It  is  proper  to  pre 
face  this  table  with  the  statement  that  several  acts  were  passed  between  the 
years  1861  and  1868  by  which  the  rates  of  duties  were  increased  or  modified. 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


TOTAL 

AMOUNTS  COLLECTED 

AVERAGE  AD  VALOREM  RATES. 

YEARS. 

IMPORTS. 

IN  DUTIES. 

FREE  AND 

DUTIABLE. 

DUTIABLE. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Per  Cent. 

Per  Cent. 

1860 

336,282,485 

52,692,421 

19.67 

15.67 

1861 

274,656,325 

39,038,269 

18.84 

14.21 

1862 

i78>33°»200 

46,509,215 

36.20 

26.08 

1863 

225»375>28o 

63,729,203 

32.62 

28.28 

1864 

301,113,322 

96,465,957 

36.69 

32.04 

1865 

^9,656,525 

80,635,170 

47-56 

38.46 

1866 

423,470,646 

177,056,523 

48.35 

4I.8l 

1867 

381,041,764 

168,503,750 

46.667 

44-559 

1868 

344,873,441 

160,532,779 

48.696 

46.557 

1869 

406,555>379 

176,557.584 

47-365 

44.761 

1870 

419,803,113 

I9I»5I3^974 

47.156 

44.919 

It  would  be  tedious  and  unprofitable  to  state  in  detail  the  changes  made 
in  the  rates  of  duties.  The  tabulated  figures  indicate  the  tendency  to  higher 
or  lower  duties  with  sufficient  clearness. 

In  1870  considerable  reductions  were  made  in  the  duties  on  a  number  of 
articles,  the  principal  of  which  were  on  tea,  coffee,  sugar,  molasses,  fruits, 
spices,  drugs,  spirits  and  wines,  and,  mirabile  dictul  iron  in  pigs  and  old 
scrap.  The  reduction  in  the  duties  on  tea  was  from  twenty-five  cents  to 
fifteen  cents  per  pound,  estimated  to  be  equal  to  forty  per  cent.  On  coffee, 
from  five  cents  to  three  cents  per  pound,  equal  to  forty  per  cent.  On  sugar 
of  the  lower  grades,  from  three  cents  per  pound  to  an  average  of  two,  equal 
to  thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent.  On  clarified  sugars,  from  three  and  a 
half  and  four  cents  per  pound,  to  two  and  three-fourths  and  three  and  one- 
fourth  cents  per  pound,  equal,  respectively,  to  twenty-one  and  three-sevenths, 
and  twelve  and  a  half  per  cent.  The  reduction  in  the  duties  on  spices  ranged 
from  thirty-three  and  one-third  to  seventy-five  per  cent.  On  brandy  the  re 
duction  was  from  three  to  two  dollars  per  gallon,  or  thirty-three  and  one-third 
per  cent.  On  spirits  from  grain,  twenty  per  cent.  On  pig  and  old  scrap 
iron,  about  twenty  per  cent. 

The  following  table  shows  the  effect  of  these  reductions  on  the  imports 
and  revenues : 


YEARS. 

TOTAL  VALUE 
OF  IMPORTS. 

DUTIES 
COLLECTED. 

AVERAGE  AD  VALOREM  RATES. 

DUTIABLE. 

FREE  AND 
DUTIABLE. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Per  Cent. 

Per  Cent. 

1871 
1872 

505,802,414 
610,904,622 

202,446,673 
212,619,105 

44.049 
41.468 

40.472 

37-939 

SOURCES  OF  REVENUE. 


139 


An  act  passed  on  May  i,  1872,  placed  tea  and  coffee  on  the  free  list ;  and 
another,  passed  on  June  6  of  the  same  year,  reduced  the  duties  on  a  number 
of  articles,  and  placed  many  others  on  the  free  list. 

The  following  figures  will  show  the  result  of  these  and  the  previous 
reductions : 


YEAR*. 

TOTAL  VALUK 
OF  IMPORTS. 

DUTIKS 
COLLECTED. 

AVERAGE  AD  VALOREM  RATES. 

DUTIABLE. 

FREE  AMD 
DUTIABLE. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Per  Cent. 

Per  Cent. 

1873 
1874 

624,689,727 
550,556,723 

184,929,042 
160,522,285 

38.149 
38.610 

27.886 
28.288 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  average  rate  of  customs  paid  on  the 
dutiable  goods  is  the  true  test  of  the  character  of  the  tariff;  since  most  of  the 
articles  on  the  free  list  are  placed  there  more  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufac 
turers  than  for  the  good  of  the  consumers, —  they  are  articles  which  enter  into 
their  manufactures.  Even  under  a  "  tariff  for  revenue,"  every  article  which 
is  placed  upon  the  free  list  increases  the  necessity  for  higher  duties  on 
others.  The  same  is  true  of  a  "  protective  "  tariff. 

In  1874  reductions  and  modifications  were  made  in  the  customs  duties, 
with  the  following  results  : 


AVERAGE  AD  VALOREM. 

TOTAL 

DUTIES 

DUTIABLE 

YEAKS. 

IMPORTS. 

COLLECTED. 

DUTIABLE. 

AND  FREX. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Per  Cent. 

Per  Cent. 

l875 

518,846,825 

I545554^983 

40.694 

29.368 

1876 

445>938>766 

145,178,603 

44.805 

31.249 

l877 

438,518,130 

128,428,343 

42.954 

29.199 

1878 

422,895,034 

127,195^59 

42.815 

29.012 

I879 

433>679>I24 

*33>395>436 

44-954 

30.366 

l88o 

656,262,441 

182,747,654 

43-563 

29.121 

1881 

624,213,229 

193,800,880 

43-253 

29.787 

1882 

7o7»332.o49 

216,138,916 

42.706 

30.178 

1883 

703,565,144 

210,637,293 

42.646 

30.055 

140  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  Tariff  Act  of  March  3,  1883,  was  passed  in  pursuance  of  the  inform 
ation  collected  by  a  Tariff  Commission  which  was  previously  created  by  act 
of  Congress.  This  act  proposed  to  make  tariff  reductions  amounting  to 
twenty  per  cent.  The  following  figures  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30, 
1884,  show  how  this  promised  reduction  was  carried  out : 

The  total  amount  of  goods  imported  was,  .  .  $667,697,693 
Of  which  the  free  list  embraced,  ....  209,884,184 
And  the  dutiable  list,  ......  457,813,509 

The  customs  duties  collected  on  this  latter  sum  amounted  to  $190,413,849. 
This  was  at  the  average  rate  of  41.591  per  cent.  The  average  rate  per  cent, 
on  the  dutiable  imports  of  1883  was  42.646  per  cent.  It  appears,  therefore, 
that  the  reduction  made  by  the  Tariff  Act  of  March  3,  1883,  instead  of  being 
twenty  per  cent.,  was  one  per  cent,  and  a  fraction  so  small  as  to  be  un 
worthy  of  notice  —  that  is  to  say,  1.055.  This  slight  reduction  in  taxes  is 
the  measure  of  the  relief  which  the  Tariff  Commission  gave  to  the  people  ! 

Another  resource  for  meeting  the  extraordinary  demands  of  the  war,  and 
its  debts  upon  the  treasury,  was  that  by  which  the  Congress  was  empowered 
to  levy  Direct  taxes  and  Excises.  Pursuant  to  this  constitutional  power, 
Congress,  by  certain  sections  of  the  Tariff  Act  of  August  5,  1861,  levied  a 
direct  tax  of  twenty  million  dollars,  and  apportioned  it  among  the  states 
in  proportion  to  their  representation  in  Congress.  This  levy,  even  for  the 
first  year,  was  never  fully  carried  out.  Congress  after  postponing  its  en 
forcement  from  year  to  year,  at  length  repealed  it,  the  Southern  States  being 
in  arrears.  It  has  been  proposed  to  return  the  money  collected  under  it  to 
the  states,  or  to  the  people. 

Some  excise  legislation  was  adopted  early  in  the  war  period,  but  the  In 
ternal  Revenue  system  was  not  regularly  established  prior  to  July  i,  1864. 
By  the  act  of  June  30,  1864,  and  subsequent  acts,  taxes  were  imposed  on  the 
sale,  consumption,  and  production  of  a  great  variety  of  domestic  manufac 
ture,  such  as  distilled  spirits,  malt  liquors,  tobacco,  textile  fabrics,  hardware, 
wooden  ware,  drugs,  cosmetics,  and  even  lucifer  matches,  and  farm  prod 
ucts.  Banking  capital,  circulation,  and  deposits,  and  incomes  of  individuals 
and  corporations  were  also  taxed,  and  a  long  schedule  of  documentary  stamp 
duties  concluded  the  array. 

The  revenue  from  these  excise  duties  during  the  first  year  was  $36,158,- 
ooo.  For  the  fiscal  year  1864,  the  yield  was  $109,526,000.  The  greatest 
income  from  this  source  was  in  the  year  1866,  when  it  rose  to  the  enormous 
sum  of  $310,906,000.  After  that  year  Congress  began  to  repeal  or  reduce 
these  taxes.  If  the  system  had  been  maintained  at  the  rates  of  1866,  the 
revenue  therefrom  would  probably  be  twice  as  great  now  as  it  was  that  year. 
All  these  excises  have  been  repealed,  except  those  on  the  manufacture  and 


THE  NATIONAL  BANK  SYSTEM.  141 

sale  of  distilled  spirits,  malt  liquors,  and  tobacco,  and  a  nominal  tax  on  bank 
circulation.  Nevertheless,  the  revenue  from  these  sources  continues  to  yield 
from  one  hundred  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  yearly.  This  amount 
with  the  revenue  from  customs,  has  for  some  years  past  created  a  surplus, 
over  the  necessary  expenditures  of  the  government,  of  about  one  hundred 
millions  per  annum.  No  party  that  maintains  such  a  surplus  revenue  can  be 
credited  with  statesmanship.  It  has  been  proposed  to  abolish  the  internal 
revenue,  but  this  is  the  least  burdensome  of  our  taxes. 

Perhaps  the  most  noteworthy  financial  feat  of  the  civil  war  period,  was 
the  establishment  of  the  national  bank  system.  On  February  25,  1863,  an 
act  was  passed,  entitled  "An  Act  to  provide  a  National  Currency,  secured 
by  a  pledge  of  United  States  stocks,  and  to  provide  for  the  circulation  and 
redemption  thereof."  By  this  act  a  Bureau  of  Currency  was  established  in 
the  Department  of  the  Treasury,  with  a  chief  styled  the  Comptroller  of  the 
Currency.  Banking  associations  were  provided  for,  to  consist  of  not  less 
than  five  persons,  who  were  required  to  file  a  certificate,  signed  and  sealed, 
specifying : 

1.  The  name  of  the  association. 

2.  The  place  proposed  for  carrying  on  business. 

3.  The  amount   of  capital,  and    the   number  of  shares.      (The  capital 
not  to  be  less  than   fifty   thousand    dollars ;    and  in  cities  of  ten  thousand 
inhabitants  or  more,  not  less  than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.) 

4.  The  names  and  places  of  residence  of  share-holders,  and  the  number 
of  shares  held  by  each. 

5.  The  time  when  the  association  was  to  commence  business. 

6.  That  the  certificate  was  made  in  order  to  secure  the  benefits  of  the 
act. 

The  law  required  that  at  least  thirty  per  cent,  of  the  capital  of  these  asso 
ciations  must  be  paid  in  before  they  commenced  business  ;  and  the  residue 
in  bi-monthly  installments.  The  stock  of  delinquent  share-holders  was  to  be 
sold  ;  and  all  share-holders  were  made  liable  for  twice  the  amount  of  their 
shares. 

These  banking  associations  might  own  the  real  estate  on  which  they  trans 
acted  their  business.  They  might  also  take  mortgages  to  secure  loans  ;  and 
buy  real  estate  at  execution  sales  to  save  debts.  Before  beginning  business 
they  were  required  to  transfer  and  deliver  to  the  United  States  Treasurer, 
interest  bearing  bonds  of  the  United  States  to  an  amount  not  less  than  one- 
third  of  the  capital  stock  paid  in. 

The  associations  thus  constituted  were  entitled  to  receive  from  the  Comp 
troller  of  the  Currency  circulating  notes  of  different  denominations,  in  blank, 
registered  and  countersigned,  equal  in  amount  to  ninety  per  centum  of  the 


142  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

current  market  value  of  the  United  States  bonds  so  transferred  and  delivered  ; 
but  not  exceeding  the  par  value  thereof,  if  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of  six 
per  centum,  or  of  equivalent  United  States  bonds  bearing  a  less  rate  of  interest. 
But  the  notes  were  not  to  exceed  in  amount  the  capital  paid  in.  The  amount 
of  circulating  notes  issued  to  all  the  associations  was  not  to  exceed  three  hun 
dred  million  dollars.  One-half  of  the  circulation  was  to  be  apportioned 
among  the  states  according  to  representation  in  Congress,  and  in  the  territories 
according  to  population.  The  other  half  was  to  be  distributed  by  the  Secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury  among  the  cities  and  towns  in  proportion  to  the  demands 
of  business.  The  notes  constituting  this  circulation  were  redeemable  in  United 
States  notes. 

This  act  was  superseded  and  repealed  by  the  act  of  June  3,  1864;  but 
its  leading  features  were  retained.  Subsequent  amendments  have  not  de 
parted  essentially  from  this  original  model  of  the  present  existing  national 
bank  system. 

The  effect  of  this  banking  act  on  the  public  debt  was  to  create  a  demand 
for  a  large  proportion  of  the  United  States  bonds  then  upon  the  market.  It 
nearly  duplicated  the  circulating  medium  when  the  associations  authorized  by 
it  availed  themselves  of  its  provisions.  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the 
necessity  of  the  national  banks  at  the  present  day,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
they  rendered  great  service  to  the  country  during  the  war,  and  for  several 
years  following  its  close. 

Before  the  Civil  War,  bank-note  circulation  was  issued  solely  under  state 
legislation,  with  such  security  for  its  redemption  as  might  be  prescribed  in 
the  statutes.  Much  of  this  security  proved  worthless  in  the  latter  part  of 
1861,  when  the  strain  of  the  war  caused  a  suspension  of  specie  payments. 
The  time  was,  therefore,  favorable  for  the  adoption  of  the  new  system  of 
paper  currency.  But  the  question  was  —  What  shall  the  system  be?  The 
old  United  States  Bank,  which  carried  on  business  for  more  than  forty  years, 
was  established  upon  the  principle  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  government  to 
furnish  the  country  a  safe  and  uniform  paper  currency.  This  institution 
was  granted  the  usual  banking  powers.  The  public  funds  were  deposited 
with  it  and  its  several  branches,  and  the  government  was  a  stockholder. 
The  contests  in  Congress  for  the  renewal  of  its  charter  became  a  bitter  party 
issue.  Among  the  charges  preferred  against  it  were  these  :  That  the  deposit 
of  government  money  enabled  it  to  outbid  private  dealers  in  the  purchase 
of  foreign  exchange ;  that  its  influence  enabled  it  to  corrupt  legislation ; 
that  it  subjected  the  government  to  the  dictation  of  a  moneyed  aristocracy ; 
and  that  it  gave  an  unfair  advantage  to  the  stockholders  of  a  single  corpora 
tion  by  the  free  use  of  the  public  money.  Whether  or  not  there  was  evidence 
to  sustain  these  charges,  it  was  not  likely  that  any  fiscal  agency  not  obviously 
free  from  such  objection  would  be  acceptable  to  the  people  at  this  time, 
although  the  notes  of  the  state  banks  had  become  almost  worthless  for  the 


THE  NATIONAL  BANK  SYSTEM  143 

purpose  of  currency.      Two   remedial  plans  were  suggested  by    Secretary 
Chase  in  his  report  to  Congress,  in  December,  1861  : 

First.  The  gradual  retirement  by  destructive  taxation  of  all  bank-notes 
emitted  by  private  corporations,  and  the  issue  in  their  stead  of  United  States 
notes  payable  in  coin  on  demand,  in  amounts  sufficient  for  the  useful  ends 
of  a  representative  currency. 

Second.     The  delivery  to  banking  associations  of  notes  prepared  for  cir 
culation  under  national  direction,  and  secured  for  prompt  convertibility  into 
coin,  by  pledge  of  United  States  bonds  and  other  needful  regulations.     The 
secretary  did  not  favor  the  first  plan.     He   feared   that  the  temptation   to 
issue  notes  would  overcome  the  caution  which  should  be  exercised  to  provide 
adequate  means  for  their  redemption.     The  second  plan,  with  the   taxing 
feature  of  the  first,  had  his  approval ;  and  the  national  banking  system  was 
subsequently   reared   upon   it.      This   was  not  altogether  a   new   financial 
device.     "  It  is  not,"  said  the  secretary  in  his  report,  "  an  untried  theory." 
In  the  State  of  New- York,  and  in  one  or  more  of  the  other  states,  it  had 
been  subjected,  in  its  most  essential  parts,  to  the  test  of  experiment,  and  was 
found   practicable  and  useful.      "  The   probabilities   of   its   success,"  said 
he,  u  will  not  be  diminished  but  increased  by  its  adoption  under  national 
sanction  and  for  the  whole  country."     It  is  said  that  Eleazur  Lord,  of  Pier- 
mont,  New- York,  was  the  first  to  propose  the  free  banking  system  of  that 
state.     Millard  Fillmore,  when  comptroller  of  New- York  in  1849,  suggested 
the  issue  of  bank-notes  secured  by  stocks  of  the  United  States,  and  receiva 
ble  at  the  National  Treasury  for  all  public  dues.     The  Hon.  Orlando  B. 
Potter,  of  the  city  of  New- York,  addressed  a  letter  to  Secretary  Chase  on 
Aug.  14,  1 86 1,  in  which  he  submitted  a  plan  for  a  national  paper  currency, 
which  he  says,  in  a  recently  published  pamphlet,  u  was  substantially  adopted 
in  the  National  Banking  Act  passed  Feb.   25,  1863."     However  this  may 
be,  Salmon  P.  Chase,  of  Ohio,  was  Secretaiy  of  the  Treasury  at  the  time. 
To  him  must  be  given  the   credit   of  the   plan  for  a  national   paper  cur 
rency,  based  on  the  national  stocks,  and  thus  secured   by  the  government 
itself.     Whether  he  invented  this  plan,  or  whether  he  adopted  it,  matters 
not.     It  was  through  his  great  financial  genius  that  by  a  single  stroke  of  the 
pen,  as  it  were,  a  bank-note  currency  as  secure  as  the  government  credit 
could  make  it,  was  substituted  for  a  paper  currency  which  varied  in  value 
in  every  state,  and  fluctuated  from  par  to  nil,  according  to  the  value  of  the 
stock,  if  any,  pledged  for  its  redemption.     The  old  currency  was  forced  in 
by  an  excise  tax  that,  while  nominally   a   revenue    measure,   was   in   fact 
prohibitory  of  its  circulation.     The  question  as  to  the  constitutional  power 
to  enforce  such  a  tax  was  afterwards  brought  before  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  in  the  case  of  The  Veazie  Bank  vs.  The  Collector  of  Inter 
nal  Revenue.     At  that  time  Mr.  Chase  was  Chief  Justice.     He  delivered 


144  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  opinion  of  the  Court,  deciding  the  question  in  the  affirmative  :  on  the 
grounds,  first,  that  there  is  no  limitation  on  the  power  of  Congress  to  impose 
excise  taxes  ;  and,  second,  that  Congress  has  the  power  to  provide  a  uniform 
paper  currency.  In  effect,  this  decision  denied  the  existence  of  sovereign 
power  in  the  states  to  charter  banks  of  issue, —  a  power  which  they  had 
freely  exercised  almost  without  question  from  the  formation  of  the  Union 
until  the  year  1864.  The  fullest  consideration  was  given  to  this  question  at 
the  January  Term  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  year 
1837,  and  it  was  then  decided  that  there  was  no  limitation  in  the  Federal 
Constitution  upon  the  sovereign  power  of  the  states  to  charter  banks  of 
issue.  Three  times  thereafter  this  decision  was  affirmed  by  that  Court.  No 
question  could  have  been  better  settled.  Yet,  as  the  result  of  war  legisla 
tion  and  the  innovations  of  the  times  upon  the  organic  laws,  the  national 
banks  were  clothed  with  the  exclusive  privilege  to  issue  paper  currency.  No 
judicial  act  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  tended  more  to  centralize  power  in 
the  Federal  Government  than  its  decision  in  the  Veazie  Bank  case.  But 
whether  the  reader  favors  or  opposes  this  system,  he  must  admit  that  it 
strengthened  the  government  credit,  and  created  a  currency  of  uniform  value 
as  stable  as  that  credit  could  make  it. 

It  is  easy,  now,  to  see  why,  irrespective  of  patriotic  motives,  capital  came 
to  avail  itself  of  the  vast  loans  negotiated  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Union. 
Without  the  Union,  all  capital  would  be  swallowed  up  in  future  and  not  far 
distant  wars.  No  two  nations  of  such  diverse  interests  and  conflicting  insti 
tutions  as  a  Northern  Union  and  a  Southern  Confederacy  could  remain  at 
peace  with  each  other.  On  the  other  hand,  the  maintenance  of  the  Union 
would  secure  to  capital  the  inexhaustible  resources  of  the  whole  country. 
We  were  banking  not  only  on  the  wealth  of  our  northern  and  western  agri 
cultural  and  mining  resources,  our  forests  and  grazing  ranges,  our  factories 
and  fisheries  ;  but  also  on  the  cotton,  tobacco,  and  other  staples  of  the  South 
ern  States,  whose  annual  yield  is  computed  by  hundreds  of  millions.  His 
tory  affords  no  parallel  of  a  people  blessed  with  such  a  wealth  of  resources, 
—  resources  that  enable  us  to  add  a  billion  in  value  to  the  credit  side  of  our 
country's  ledger  each  succeeding  year !  Vast  as  were  our  financial  opera 
tions  during  the  prosecution  of  the  war  for  the  Union,  they  were  almost  as 
nothing  compared  with  what  could  have  been  accomplished  had  our  full 
abilities  been  tested. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


THE   LEADING  MOVEMENTS   OF    THE   WAR,  1861-1862. 

WHAT  ARE  ACTS  OF  WAR?  — SEIZURE  OF  FEDERAL  FORTS  AND  PROPERTY  — 
SUMTER  AND  ITS  FATE  —  DIPLOMACY  AND  ITS  FAILURE— JUDGE  CAMPBELL 
AND  MR.  SEWARD  —  THE  EXCITEMENT  NORTH  AND  SOUTH  — BLOOD  SPRINK 
LING  IMPULSES— JERRY  CLEMENS  AND  HIS  STORY  —  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S 
PROCLAMATIONS  — EXTRA  SESSION,  1861  — PREPARATIONS  FOR  HOSTILITIES  — 
BLOCKADE— RESPONSE  TO  CALL  FOR  TROOPS  -  BALTIMORE  IN  A  FERMENT 

—  MASSACHUSETTS  AROUSED— THE  MOUNTAIN  UNIONISTS  — BORDER  STATES 
SECESSIONISTS  — ELLSWORTH'S    DEATH— THE  ARMY  ABOUT  WASHINGTON  — 
THE  ADVANCE  TO  RICHMOND  —  BULL  RUN,  ITS   HUMORS   AND  TRAGEDIES  — 
BALL'S  BLUFF  AND  ITS  DISASTER  — MISSOURI  CAMPAIGN— LYON'S   HEROISM 

—  GENERAL  BAKER  AND  STONE  PASHA— THE    OUTRAGE  UPON   THE  LATTER 

—  EXPEDITIONS    TO    NORTH    AND    SOUTH     CAROLINA  — THEIR      SUCCESSES  — 
BATTLE  IN  HAMPTON  ROADS— THE    MARVEL    OF    HISTORY. 

THE  adoption  of  an  ordinance  of  secession,  or  of  nullification,  by  a 
state  convention  has  not  been  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  declaration 
of  war  against  the  United  States  ;  but  when  followed  by  the  seiz 
ure  of  forts  and  arsenals,  and  other  public  property  of  the  general 
government,  it  is  so  regarded.     An  attempt  so  to  obstruct  or  hinder  the  ex 
ecution  of  the  laws  of  Congress,  by  the  organized  militia  of  a  state,  can  be 
construed  as  nothing  less  than  an  act  of  war.     But  the  word   "  war"  is  a 
generic  term.     Such  an  act  of  hostility  is  defined  in  the  Constitution  as  an  act 
of  "  insurrection."      Secession  is  Insurrection.     Nine  of  the  twelve   states 
whose  delegates  framed  and  signed  the  Constitution,  were  made  necessary 
to  its  enforcement  upon   themselves ;   and  three-fourths  of  the   states  must 
concur  in  amendments.     It  would  be  unreasonable,  therefore,  to  hold  that 
one  state  may  undo  the  work  of  three-fourths   of  the   states.     So  thought 
President  Jackson,  in   1832.     He  then  issued  his  celebrated  Proclamation 
warning  the  people  of  South  Carolina  against  the  consequences  of  attempt- 


146  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ing  to  enforce  their  ordinance  which  declared  the  tariff  laws  null  and  void. 
President  Lincoln  acted  on  this  principle  in  1861,  with  reference  to  the  seiz 
ure  of  the  custom  house  at  Charleston,  and  the  firing  upon  the  forts  by  the 
state  and  Confederate  forces. 

The  first  overt  act  was  the  seizure  of  the  revenue  cutter  Aiken.  This 
was  done  by  the  state  authorities,  to  whom  it  was  surrendered  by  Capt. 
M.  L.  Coste.  This  act  of  war  was  followed  by  the  seizure  of  forts,  arsen 
als,  custom  houses,  and  other  property  of  the  government  along  the  south 
ern  coast,  from  Beaufort  in  North  Carolina,  to  western  Texas.  Only  Fort 
Sumter  at  Charleston,  Fort  Pickens  at  Pensacola,  and  the  fort  at  Key 
West  remained,  within  the  limits  of  the  seven  Confederate  States,  in  the 
possession  of  the  United  States  forces,  at  the  close  of  Mr.  Buchanan's 
administration.  On  the  fifth  day  of  January,  1861,  the  government  dis 
patched  the  steamer  Star  of  the  West  from  New- York,  with  supplies  and 
re-enforcements  for  Fort  Sumter.  It  arrived  off  the  harbor  of  Charleston 
on  the  9th.  It  was  fired  upon  and  driven  back  to  sea  by  the  Confederate  bat 
teries.  No  further  attempt  was  made  during  Mr.  Buchanan's  administra 
tion,  to  defend  the  public  property  in  the  Confederate  States. 

The  convention  of  South  Carolina  sent  commissioners  to  Washington. 
They  were  to  negotiate  for  the  peaceful  surrender  of  the  public  property 
to  the  state.  On  the  28th  of  December,  1860,  they  addressed  a  note  to 
the  President.  Copies  of  their  full  powers  in  the  premises  were  enclosed. 
They  also  submitted  the  ordinance  of  secession.  They  thought  that  there 
would  be  little  difficulty  in  settling  the  terms  of  the  surrender.  After  their 
arrival  in  Washington,  they  were  disenchanted.  They  learned  of  the  dis 
mantling  and  abandonment  of  Fort  Moultrie  by  Major  Anderson.  They 
were  advised  of  his  occupancy  of  Fort  Sumter.  Until  these  circumstances 
should  be  explained  they  concluded  to  suspend  further  negotiations.  They, 
however,  urged  the  immediate  withdrawal  of  the  troops  from  the  harbor 
of  Charleston.  They  regarded  their  occupancy  of  the  fort  as  a  menace. 
While  the  Union  flag  floated  over  them  negotiation  was  impossible.  Presi 
dent  Buchanan  replied,  in  the  language  of  his  annual  message,  that, 
apart  from  the  execution  of  the  laws,  "  so  far  as  it  shall  be  practicable," 
the  Executive  has  no  power  to  decide  what  shall  be  the  relations  between 
the  Federal  Government  and  South  Carolina.  He  held  that  the  Consti 
tution  conferred  no  power  upon  the  Federal  Government  "  to  coerce  a  state 
into  submission,  which  is  attempting  to  withdraw,  or  has  actually  withdrawn 
from  the  confederacy."  President  Lincoln,  in  his  inaugural  speech,  as 
sumed  it  to  be  his  duty  to  enforce  the  laws ;  but  he  disclaimed  the  wish, 
and  the  power,  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  states.  He  declared  that 
he  took  the  official  oath  with  no  mental  reservations. 

Early  in  March,  1861,  Messrs.  John  Forsyth,  of  Alabama,  Martin  J. 
Crawford,  of  Georgia,  and  Andre  Bienvenu  Roman,  of  Louisiana,  made 


THE  CONFEDERATE  COMMISSIONERS.  147 

their  appearance  in  Washington.  They  came  as  commissioners  represent 
ing  the  Confederate  authorities.  They  were  charged  with  the  duty  of  ne 
gotiating  a  peace  between  the  Confederacy  and  the  United  States.  One 
condition  to  such  a  peace  was  the  surrender  by  the  latter  to  the  former, 
of  all  forts,  arsenals,  and  public  property.  This  was  to  be  accompanied  by 
an  adjustment  of  the  proportions  of  the  public  debt  to  be  borne  by  each. 
The  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Seward,  declined  to  see  the  commissioners. 
He  returned  a  polite  reply  to  their  written  communication.  It  was  in  the 
form  of  a  memorandum.  In  this  memorandum,  the  secretary  rejects  the 
assumption  of  the  commissioners,  that  the  Confederate  States  had  estab 
lished  an  independent  government,  de  facto  and  de  jure.  He  resents  all  the 
assumed  consequences  that  would  flow  from  such  a  relation.  The  memo 
randum  bears  date  March  15,  1861.  It  states  that  the  communication  from 
the  commissioners  was  received  on  the  i3th.  The  memorandum  was  not 
sent  to  the  commissioners  until  the  8th  of  April. 

The  commissioners  were  not  as  courteous  as  the  secretary  in  their  reply 
to  his  memorandum.  They  reply  on  April  9th.  They  call  attention  to  trie- 
long  delay  of  the  secretary.  They  leave  the  inference  that  they  regarded  the 
delay  as  proceeding  from  a  desire  to  gain  time,  while  relief  was  being  sent 
to  Fort  Sumter.  They  admit  that  they  consented  to  the  delay ;  but  only 
upon  the  assurance,  given  by  Mr.  Seward  to  "a  person  occupying  a 
high  official  position  in  the  government " —  meaning  Judge  Campbell  of  the 
Supreme  Court, — u  that  Fort  Sumter  would  be  evacuated  in  a  very  few  days." 
Judge  Campbell,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Seward,  dated  April  I3th,  reiterates  the 
statement,  that  he  gave  them  the  information,  on  the  secretary's  authority, 
that  the  fort  would  be  evacuated  within  five  days.  He  calls  upon  the  secre 
tary  to  explain  the  cause  of  the  failure  to  carry  out  the  promise.  At  the 
expiration  of  the  five  days,  he  calls  on  him  again  with  a  telegram  from 
General  Beauregard  to  the  effect  that  Sumter  was  not  evacuated,  and  that 
Major  Anderson  was  at  work  making  repairs.  He  then  learned  from  Mr. 
Seward  that  the  failure  to  evacuate  was  not  the  result  of  bad  faith,  but  was 
attributable  to  causes  consistent  with  the  intention  to  fulfill  the  engagement ; 
and  that  notice  would  be  given  of  any  design  to  change  the  status  at 
Fort  Pickens.  Judge  Campbell  states  that  Judge  Nelson  of  the  Supreme 
Court  was  also  present  at  these  conversations.  They  were  three  in  num 
ber.  The  communications  to  the  commissioners  had  been  shown  to  and 
sanctioned  by  that  gentleman.  Judge  Campbell  further  states  that,  on  the 
ist  of  April,  Mr.  Seward  gave  him  the  written  assurance  that  he  was  satis 
fied  the  government  would  not  attempt  to  supply  Fort  Sumter  without  giv 
ing  notice  to  Governor  Pickens.  On  the  £th  of  April,  Judge  Campbell 
states  that  Secretary  Seward  wrote  to  him,  "  Faith  as  to  Sumter  fully  kept; 
wait  and  see."  The  next  morning  he  read  in  the  newspapers  that  an  au 
thorized  messenger  from  President  Lincoln  had  informed  Governor  Pickens 


148  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

and  General  Beauregard  that  provisions  would  be  sent  to  Fort  Sumter 
"  peaceably,  or  otherwise  by  force."  On  the  2Oth  of  April,  Judge  Campbell 
addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  Seward  enclosing  a  second  letter  similar  to  that 
of  the  1 3th,  and  stating  that  he  had  received  no  reply  to  the  latter. 

An  article  in  the  Albany  Evening  Journal  of  May  30  gives  what  was, 
in  all  probability,  Mr.  Seward's  version  of  the  affair.  That  journal  was 
edited  by  Mr.  Thurlow  Weed.  He  was  a  life-long  personal  and  political 
friend  of  the  secretary.  The  statement  may  be  regarded  as  fully  author 
ized.  Mr.  Weed  states  that  if  Mr.  Seward  were  at  liberty  to  reveal  all  that 
passed  between  him  and  Judge  Campbell  on  several  occasions,  not  only  no 
imputation  would  rest  upon  the  secretary's  sincerity,  but  the  facts  would 
seriously  affect  Judge  Campbell's  well-established  reputation  for  candor  and 
frankness.  The  implication  was  that  Judge  Campbell  balanced  long  be 
tween  loyalty  and  secession ;  that  if  he  favored  secession  while  those  con 
versations  were  being  held,  he  was  misunderstood  ;  and  that  if  during  that 
period  of  mental  trial  he  was  acting  in  harmony  with  the  leading  enemies 
of  the  Union,  he  was  grossly  misunderstood.  The  Journal  admits  a  misun 
derstanding  on  Mr.  Seward's  part:  "That  Governor  Seward  conversed 
freely  with  Judge  Campbell,  we  do  not  deny,  nor  do  we  doubt  that  in  these 
conversations,  at  one  period,  he  intimated  that  Fort  Sumter  would  be 
evacuated.  He  certainly  believed  so,  founding  his  opinion  upon  a  knowl 
edge  of  General  Scott's  recommendation."  These  discrepancies,  if  chari 
tably  construed,  do  not  militate  against  the  honor  or  good  faith  of  either  of 
these  gentlemen.  No  doubt  it  was  a  case  of  diplomacy  on  both  sides. 

Mr.  Seward  was  anxious  to  avert  war.  It  could  not,  therefore,  be  said 
that  he  gave  a  positive  promise  which  might  not  be  retracted.  He  tempor 
ized  then,  as  who  did  not?  He  was  ready  to  make  concessions  which  could 
not  be  required  by  constitutional  obligations.  He  made  concessions  to 
which  a  man  like  Andrew  Jackson  would  not  have  listened.  Mr.  Seward 
possessed  a  daring  spirit  and  a  firm  purpose  in  the  conduct  of  foreign  affairs, 
but  in  domestic  concerns  which  might  eventuate  in  civil  war,  he  had  the 
noble  hesitation  of  a  patriot.  Other  men  behind  the  President,  who  ap 
peared  to  have  greater  firmness  of  purpose,  were  far  less  considerate  of  con 
sequences.  It  was  these  men  who  overruled  the  peaceful  plans  of  the  Sec 
retary  of  State. 

The  steam  transport  Atlantic  sailed  from  New-York  with  troops  and 
supplies  on  the  Jfth  of  ApriL  On  the  same,  or  the  next  day,  Governor 
Pickens  received  official  notification  from  Washington  that  supplies  would 
be  sent  to  Major  Anderson.  Charleston  was  at  that  time  filled  with  Confed 
erate  troops.  There  could  be  no  ground  for  a  complaint  that  timely  notice 
had  not  been  given  .^"General  Beauregard  was  in  command  of  six  thousand 
troops  in  the  forts  and  batteries  which  he  had  seized  or  constructed.  Major 
Anderson  had  taken  refuge  with  his  eighty  men  in  Fort  Sumter.  He  was 


THE  FIRST  GUNS  OF  THE  WAR. 

short  of  provisions.  On  the  nth  of  April,  General  Beauregard  demanded 
the  surrender  of  the  fort.  Major  Anderson  declined  to  comply.  At  4.30 
o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  i2th,  the  Confederates  opened  a  heavy  fire 
with  seventeen  mortars  and  thirty  large  guns.  The  fort  replied.  It  had 
guns  of  inferior  range  and  calibre.  The  bombardment  was  kept  up  for 
thirty-four  hours,  "until,"  as  Major  Anderson  states  in  his  report,  "  the 
quarters  were  entirely  burnt,  the  main  gates  destroyed  by  fire,  the  gorge 
walls  seriously  injured,  the  magazine  surrounded  by  flames,  and  its  door 
closed  from  the  effects  of  heat."  The  powder  was  nearly  exhausted. 
The  slender  garrison  had  nothing  but  pork  in  the  way  of  provisions.  There 
was  imminent  danger  of  an  explosion  of  the  magazine.  Under  these  cir 
cumstances  Major  Anderson  was  tendered  honorable  conditions.  He  ac 
cepted  them  and  surrendered.  He  marched  out  of  the  fort  on  Sunday  after 
noon,  April  14,  with  colors  flying  and  drums  beating,  bringing  away  com 
pany  and  private  property,  and  saluting  his  flag  with  fifty  guns.  And  thus 
began  the  most  needless  and  gigantic  civil  war  ever  recorded  in  the  annals 
of  our  kind. 

Down  to  this  period,  public  sentiment  in  the  Northern  states  had  been 
divided  in  regard  to  the  course  to  be  pursued.  But  the  bombardment  and 
capture  of  Fort  Sumter  touched  every  patriotic  sensibility.  The  national 
flag  was  fired  upon.  It  was  lowered  in  surrender.  There  was  aroused  a 
universal  sentiment  of  indignation.  It  was  intensified  by  the  desire  for  re 
venge.  Many  who  had  been  opposed  to  a  war  with  the  South,  and  who 
had  entertained  strong  political  sympathies  with  her  upon  the  causes  which 
provoked  secession,  were  now  emphatic  in  her  denunciation.  They  were 
among  the  readiest  to  volunteer  for  the  suppression  of  the  insurgency.  The 
whole  North  was  aroused;  and  everywhere  the  appeal  was  heard, —  "  To 
arms  !  To  arms  !  " 

Did  the  South  lack  in  enthusiastic  devotion?  The  effect  was  also  in- 
stanstaneous  and  electric  upon  the  ardent  Southerner.  The  doubters  and 
semi-Unionists  became  convinced  that  separation  was  a  necessity.  Those 
who  could  not  sanction  the  theory  of  secession  as  a  constitutional  remedy 
for  Southern  grievances,  lifted  up  their  ensign  and  proclaimed  the  inalien 
able  right  of  revolution.  As  predicted,  the  shedding  of  blood  was  necessary 
to  fire  the  Southern  heart.  The  spirit  of  secession  was  not  laggard  but 
swift.  Roger  A.  Pryor,  then  a  distinguished  representative  of  Virginia  in 
Congress,  went  to  Charleston  in  the  early  part  of  April.  He  urged  the 
Confederates  to  make  the  attack  on  the  Union  fortifications.  In  a  speech 
to  the  people  and  soldiery,  by  whom  he  was  serenaded  two  days  before  the 
bombardment  began,  he  said,  amid  enthusiastic  and  deafening  outbursts  of 
applause  :  "Do  not  distrust  Virginia.  As  sure  as  to-morrow's  sun  will  rise 
upon  us,  just  so  sure  will  Virginia  be  a  member  of  the  Southern  Confeder 
ation.  And  I  will  tell  you,  gentlemen,  what  will  put  her  in  the  Southern 


150  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Confederation  in  less  than  an  hour,  by  Shrewsbury  Clock.  Strike  a  blow  ! 
[This  was  received  with  tremendous  applause.]  The  very  moment  that 
blood  is  shed,  Old  Virginia  will  make  common  cause  with  her  sisters  of  the 
South.  It  is  impossible  she  should  do  otherwise."  —  Mr.  Pryor  reasoned 
well.  He  was  prophetic.  Fort  Sumter  surrendered  on  the  i4th,  and  the 
Virginia  convention  passed  the  secession  ordinance  three  days  after. 

The  same  policy  was  urged  in  Alabama  after  the  state  legislature  had 
adopted  an  ordinance  of  secession  in  secret  session  and  refused  to  submit  it 
to  the  people  for  ratification.  Mr.  Jeremiah  Clemens  gave  some  point  to 
this  fact,  in  an  address  made  by  him,  on  March  13,  1864,  at  a  peace  meeting 
held  in  his  native  town  of  Huntsville,  in  that  state.  He  had  served  in  the 
United  States  Senate.  He  had  been  a  distinguished  officer  in  the  Texan 
war  for  independence,  and  in  the  Mexican  War.  He  did  not  favor  the 
secession  movement.  He  protested  against  it,  and,  in  fact,  he  openly  advo 
cated  the  re-election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  1864.  In  adjourning  the  meeting, 
Mr.  Clemens  said  he  would  tell  the  Alabamians  how  their  state  was  got 
out  of  the  Union.  "In  1861,"  said  he,  "  shortly  after  the  Confederate 
Government  was  put  in  operation,  I  was  in  the  city  of  Montgomery.  One 
day  I  stepped  into  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  General  Walker,  and 
found  there,  engaged  in  a  very  excited  discussion,  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis, 
Mr.  Meminger,  Mr.  Benjamin,  Mr.  Gilchrist,  a  member  of  our  legislature, 
and  other  prominent  gentlemen.  They  were  discussing  the  propriety  of  im 
mediately  opening  fire  on  Fort  Sumter,  to  which  General  Walker  appeared 
to  be  opposed.  Mr.  Gilchrist  said  to  him  :  '  Sir,  unless  you  sprinkle  blood 
in  the  faces  of  the  people  of  Alabama,  they  will  be  back  in  the  old  Union 
in  less  than  ten  days!'  The  next  day  General  Beauregard  opened  his  bat 
teries  on  Sumter,  and  Alabama  was  saved  to  the  Confederacy." — This 
sprinkling  of  blood  is  equally  effective  North  and  South.  Thenceforward 
there  is  little  hope  of  restoring  peace  until  the  resources  of  the  weaker 
party  are  exhausted. 

When  the  news  of  the  capture  of  Fort  Sumter  reaches  Washington, 
President  Lincoln  issues  a  proclamation.  It  is  dated  April  15.  He  calls 
upon  the  states  for  seventy-five  thousand  militia,  "  in  order  to  suppress  un 
lawful  combinations,  and  to  cause  the  laws  to  be  duly  executed."  He 
appeals  to  all  loyal  citizens  to  aid  him  in  maintaining  the  honor,  the  in 
tegrity,  and  the  existence  of  the  National  Union.  The  first  services  of  the 
troops  called  forth  will,  probably,  be  to  repossess  the  forts,  places,  and  prop 
erty  which  have  been  seized  ;  and  in  every  event,  the  assurance  is  given  that 
the  utmost  care  will  be  observed,  consistently  with  the  objects  named,  to 
avoid  any  devastation,  any  destruction  of,  or  interference  with  property, 
or  any  disturbance  of  peaceful  citizens  in  any  part  of  the  country.  He  com 
mands  all  unlawful  combinations  to  disperse  within  twenty  days,  and  calls 
the  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  to  convene  on  the  fourth  day 


AFTER  SUMTER  — WAR.  151 

of  July,  in  extraordinary  session. —  The  writer  went  to  that  session  as  a 
member  of  Congress,  fresh  from  the  terrible  excitements  of  the  capital  of 
Ohio,  with  a  fear  and  trembling  beyond  all  other  public  experiences. 

The  President's  proclamation  was  certainly  within  the  line  of  executive 
duty.  It  came  strictly  within  the  Constitution.  Yet  it  was  made  the  ground 
of  justification  for  the  secession  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and 
Arkansas.  These  states,  up  to  that  date,  had  been  held  in  the  Union  by  the 
strong  anti-secession  sentiment  of  the  people  and  their  leaders.  The  seces 
sionists  were  consistent  at  least ;  but  the  Unionists  of  the  South  were  not. 
The  latter  held,  with  Henry  Clay  and  Andrew  Jackson,  that  secession  and 
nullification  were  not  rightful  nor  constitutional  remedies  for  grievances. 
They  could  not  justify  resistance  to  the  Federal  forces  on  the  ground  that 
the  President  had  no  power  to  call  out  the  militia  to  protect  the  public  pro 
perty  and  enforce  the  laws.  They  simply  fell  into  the  current  with  their 
states.  They  drifted,  unable  to  resist  the  popular  passions  in  the  impending 
war,  until  at  last  they  heartily  espoused  the  Confederate  cause. 

Although  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  immeasurably 
stronger  than  the  Confederacy,  the  latter  was,  at  the  moment,  better  pre 
pared  for  hostilities  than  the  former.  As  has  been  stated,  Beauregard 
had  six  thousand  troops  under  arms  at  Charleston.  Volunteers  were 
ready  to  march  from  every  part  of  the  seceded  states.  Not  a  few  were  going 
South  from  the  border  states.  They  were  full  of  dash,  esprit,  strength  and 
courage.  They  were  as  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  resistance  as 
any  revolutionist  who  ever  raised  a  troop  or  carried  a  flag.  Pending  the 
Southern  agitation  and  preparation  for  war,  the  Northern  people  had  been 
listlessly  looking  on.  They  were  wondering  what  was  to  come  of  the  ex 
citement.  They  prophesied  a  short  duration  of  conflict.  Then  all  would 
be  serene  again.  The  regular  army  was  not  above  ten  thousand  effect 
ive  men.  It  was  scattered  over  the  Western  territories.  Only  a  few -hun 
dred  could  be  brought  together  to  meet  the  emergency.  Most  of  the  officers 
from  the  South  resigned  and  took  commissions  from  the  Confederacy.  The 
navy,  too,  had  been  dispatched  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe  ;  although, 
regarding  that  arm  of  the  service,  the  government,  of  course,  had  greatly 
the  advantage  over  the  insurgents.  John  B.  Floyd,  of  Virginia,  who  had 
been  Secretary  of  War  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  until 
the  end  of  the  year  1860,  found  pretexts  for  sending  vast  numbers  of  small 
arms,  as  well  as  cannon,  from  Harper's  Ferry  and  Pittsburgh  to  the  South. 
He  resigned  when  this  misuse  of  his  authority  was  arrested  ;  but  the  mis 
chief  was  already  done.  The  Confederates  were  placed  in  possession  of  im 
mense  military  equipments  and  stores,  on  the  easy  terms  of  seizing  the  forts 
and  arsenals  in  the  South,  each  guarded  by,  at  most,  a  captain's  company. 
The  result  of  the  war  proved  how  all  these  advantages  were  reversed  by  the 
mechanical  skill  and  forces  of  the  North. 


152  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

On  the  I9th  of  April,  the  President  issues  another  proclamation.  It  de 
clares  a  blockade  of  the  ports  of  the  insurrectionary  states.  A  competent 
force  is  to  be  posted  so  as  to  prevent  the  entrance  and  exit  of  vessels.  Vessels 
attempting  to  enter,  or  departing,  are  to  be  warned  off  by  the  blockading  ves 
sels.  A  second  attempt  to  enter  is  to  be  a  ground  of  forfeiture  as  a  prize. 
The  blockade  is  extended  to  the  ports  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  on  the 
zyth  of  April.  This  is  done  in  consequence  of  the  seizure  of  government 
property  and  the  arrest  of  government  officers  by  the  authorities  of  those 
states. 

The  Northern  states  promptly  respond  to  the  President's  call  for  troops. 
Pennsylvania  being  the  nearest  to  the  capital,  is  the  first  to  reach  it,  with  three 
companies,  on  the  iSth  of  April.  The  Sixth  Massachusetts  regiment  ar 
rives  at  Baltimore  on  the  i9th,  the  anniversary  of  the  battle  of  Lexington. 
It  is  there  held  in  check  by  a  mob  for  some  hours.  Eight  of  the  companies 
go  through  the  city  in  railway  cars,  drawn  by  horses.  They  are  assailed 
with  showers  of  stones  and  bricks.  The  two  rear  companies  alight.  They 
march  through,  and  are  also  assailed.  Two  soldiers  are  killed,  and  eight 
wounded.  The  soldiers  refrain  from  using  their  muskets  as  long  as  pos 
sible.  At  length  random  shots  are  fired,  by  which  several  of  the  assailants 
are  killed  and  wounded.  The  regiment  forces  a  passage  through  the  city, 
and  reaches  Washington.  This  is  the  first  blood  shed  in  the  war ;  for  the 
bombardment  of  Fort  Sumter  killed  no  one.  The  excitement  produced  in 
the  Northern  states,  and  especially  in  Massachusetts,  by  this  hostile  reception 
of  Union  troops  in  Baltimore,  is  intense.  The  effect  is  to  nerve  the  arms  of 
Northern  men  for  the  fight.  Baltimore  remains,  for  some  days,  under  the 
control  of  the  mob.  Governor  Hicks  and  the  mayor  inform  the  President 
that  no  more  troops  can  pass  through  the  city  without  fighting  their  way. 
But  Baltimore  cannot  stop  the  march  of  the  Northern  legions.  Not  for  a 
second  of  time  can  that  be  done. 

Troops  are  now  rapidly  pouring  into  Washington  from  the  Northern 
states.  Annapolis  and  Fortress  Monroe  are  re-enforced  by  volunteers.  The 
legislatures  of  the  Northern  states  liberally  vote  men  and  money.  Great 
public  meetings  are  held.  Many  more  men  volunteer  than  are  called  for. 
Early  in  May,  the  President  makes  a  requisition  for  42,000  three-months 
volunteers.  At  the  same  time  he  directs,  on  his  own  responsibility,  that  an 
addition  of  eight  regiments  of  infantry,  one  of  cavalry,  and  one  of  artillery 
be  made  to  the  regular  army, —  the  aggregate  is  to  be  18,000  men.  These 
measures  are  afterwards  legalized  by  an  act  of  Congress.  The  Confederates 
are  equally  active  in  preparing  for  war  on  a  large  scale.  They  are  so 
elated  by  their  successes  that  they  expect  to  seize  the  capital  of  the  Nation. 
Some  sanguine  secessionists  talk  of  a  march  to  Boston,  and  of  hoisting  their 
flag  on  Bunker  Hill  in  ninety  days.  By  the  first  day  of  May  the  Confederates 
have  seized  sixteen  United  States  forts  and  arsenals,  and  1,200  heavy  cannon. 


GENERAL  BUTLER  IN  BALTIMORE. 


153 


The  Union  officers  in  command  of  Harper's  Ferry  Arsenal,  and  Gosport 
Navy  Yard,  near  Norfolk,  blow  up  and  destroy  the  immense  military  and 
naval  armaments  at  those  important  government  works,  to  prevent  their  fall 
ing  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  The  property  destroyed  at  the  navy  yard 
is  valued  at  $7,000,000  ;  and  yet  a  large  number  of  heavy  guns  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  Confederates. 

The  people  inhabiting  the  Alleghany  range  of  mountains,  from  Pennsyl 
vania  to  Georgia,  except  those  in  the  Virginia  valley,  held  few  slaves  ;  and  as  a 
consequence,  the  secession  sentiment  had  only  a  fragile  hold  upon  them.  The 
counties  of  Virginia  west  of  the  Alleghanies,  backed  as  they  were  by  Penn 
sylvania  and  Ohio,  were  strong  enough  to  break  off  from  the  state,  and  set  up 
an  independent  government.  This  was  carrying  the  doctrine  of  secession 
further  than  its  authors  intended  it  to  go ;  but  in  the  end,  however  invalid 
and  unconstitutional,  it  was  the  only  kind  of  secession  that  succeeded.  A 
similar  loyalty  of  feeling  prevailed  among  the  independent  mountaineers  of 
North  Carolina  and  Tennessee  ;  but  being  in  the  midst  of  the  Confederacy, 
they  were,  from  time  to  time,  overrun  by  the  Confederate  troops  in  their 
marches  and  countermarches  from  north  to  south.  Hence  they  were  not 
in  a  condition  to  institute  independent  governments.  They  were,  neverthe 
less,  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  Confederacy,  and  rendered  not  a  little  service 
to  the  Union  cause.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Union  sentiment  was 
far  stronger  in  these  mountain  districts  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee 
than  it  was  in  the  border  states,  — Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri.  Yet 
the  services  and  sufferings  of  these  people  in  the  cause  of  the  Union,  were 
never  sufficiently  appreciated  by  the  general  government. 

There  is  conclusive  proof  that  the  ruling  classes,  if  not  a  majority  of  the 
people,  in  Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  were  in  entire  sympathy  with 
the  South  ;  but  the  contiguity  of  these  states  to  the  powerful  and  populous 
North  paralyzed  all  the  efforts  made  to  draw  them  from  the  Union.  The 
war,  as  regards  the  other  states,  was  a  war  of  sections  —  of  the  South 
against  the  North  ;  but  in  Kentucky  and  Missouri  there  was  civil  war  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  It  was  a  war  in  which  neighbor  was  arrayed 
against  neighbor  and,  sometimes,  brother  against  brother.  Secession,  how 
ever,  was  soon  expelled  from  them,  and  the  Union  lines,  though  liable  to 
be  invaded,  were  fixed,  in  the  early  part  of  the  struggle,  upon  their  southern 
boundaries. 

Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler  took  possession  of  the  Relay  House  on  the 
loth  of  May,  1861,  and  of  Federal  Hill  in  Baltimore,  on  the  1 3th,  with 
the  Union  troops  under  his  command.  After  this  there  was  no  further 
trouble  from  the  excitements  of  that  city.  By  securing  a  position  at  the 
Relay  House,  he  held  the  line  of  communication  open  from  the  North  to 
Washington,  and  commanded  the  line  to  the  West  along  the  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Railroad.  It  was  a  most  important  military  feat,  on  the  success 
of  which  depended  the  fate  of  the  capital. 

10 


154  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

On  the  24th  of  May,  Ellsworth's  Zouave  regiment  of  Illinois  and  a 
Michigan  regiment  cross  the  Potomac  at  Washington.  These  take  pos 
session  of  Alexandria.  A  citizen  named  Jackson  is  the  proprietor  of  the 
Marshall  House.  He  floats  the  secession  flag  from  the  top  of  his  house. 
Colonel  Ellsworth,  finding  no  one  who  acknowledges  responsibility  for  the 
flag,  ascends  the  stairway  to  the  roof  accompanied  by  two  soldiers.  He 
takes  the  flag  down.  As  the  colonel  descends  he  is  met  by  Jackson,  who 
fires  upon  and  kills  him  instantly.  In  a  moment  Jackson  himself  is  shot 
dead  by  one  of  Ellsworth's  men.  This  tragedy,  so  near  the  capital,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  war,  causes  a  great  sensation.  It  intensifies  the  pas 
sionate,  already  hot  enthusiasm  of  the  people  on  both  sides.  The  Con 
federates  evacuate  Alexandria  on  the  approach  of  the  Union  troops.  They 
fall  back  toward  the  main  body  of  their  forces  which  are  gathering  in  the 
vicinity.  On  Arlington  Heights  is  the  residence  of  Col.  Robert  E.  Lee. 
They  are  in  full  view  of,  and  command  the  national  capital.  On  the  24th 
of  May  they  are  occupied  by  the  government  forces,  and  are  soon  fortified 
by  them.  From  this  time  forward,  regiments  and  brigades,  as  they  arrive 
from  the  North,  are  marched  across  the  Potomac  and  encamped  on  the  south 
side,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Heights.  A  few  miles  beyond  the  Union  lines 
the  capital  is  menaced  by  the  gathering  hosts  of  the  Confederates.  As  a 
matter  of  policy  and  law,  it  is  most  important  that  the  capital  should  remain 
in  the  hands  of  the  Unionists.  The  northern  approaches  are  not  forgotten. 
Soon  a  line  of  fortifications,  armed  and  manned,  extends  entirely  around 
the  District  of  Columbia.  The  fortifications  consist  of  a  series  of  earth 
works,  at  intervals  of  a  few  hundred  yards,  connected  by  rifle-pits. 

In  this  brief  reference  to  military  movements,  it  is  impracticable  to 
allude  to  many  events  which  awakened  great  interest,  North  and  South,  at 
the  time  of  their  occurrence.  To  do  so  is  not  within  the  scope  and  intent  of 
this  volume.  The  military  movements  are  only  incidental  to  its  purpose. 
Passing  by  a  number  of  encounters  in  the  upper  counties  of  Virginia,  in  most 
of  which  the  government  forces  had  the  advantage,  and  the  affair  at  Big 
Bethel  in  eastern  Virginia,  in  which  the  Confederates  were  successful,  it 
must  suffice  to  present  a  little  more  in  detail  the  incidents  attending  the 
first  great  battle  of  the  war.  That  battle  bears  the  significant  title  of  Bull 
Run.  This  is  the  name  of  a  creek  which  separates  the  counties  of  Fairfax 
and  Prince  William,  in  Virginia.  The  battle-ground  is  in  the  vicinity  of 
the  stream,  about  thirty-five  miles  from  Washington.  The  Confederates, 
under  the  command  of  General  Beauregard,  were  massed  in  the  same 
vicinity,  near  Manassas  Junction,  on  the  Orange  and  Alexandria  Railroad. 
The  Union  forces  were  commanded  by  Brig.-Gen.  Irvin  McDowell.  As 
has  been  stated,  they  were  encamped  on  and  around  Arlington  Heights. 
The  right  wing  was  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Potomac,  extending  for  some 
miles  above  Georgetown. 


THE  FIRST  BULL  RUN  BATTLE.  155 

Much  criticism  was  then  indulged  in,  because  of  the  dilatoriness  of  the 
army.  The  non-action  of  the  generals  was  made  the  theme  of  many  a  jibe, 
as  it  was  afterwards,  when  General  McClellan  took  command.  But  while 
officers  like  Lieutenant-General  Scott  and  Brigadier-General  McDowell 
believed  that  some  weeks  of  drilling  would  be  necessary  to  prepare  raw 
militia  for  the  battle-field,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  popular  demand 
for  an  advance  had  the  effect  of  hastening  the  movement  on  the  enemy  at 
Manassas. 

General  Mansfield,  commanding  the  Department  of  Washington,  in  his 
report  of  June  27,  1861,  states  that  the  number  of  privates,  including  regu 
lars  and  volunteers,  present  for  duty  in  the  vicinity  of  Washington,  was 
22,846 ;  and  that  the  grand  aggregate  of  officers  and  men,  present  and 
absent,  was  34,160.  General  Patterson,  commanding  in  Maryland,  to  the 
west  of  Washington,  had  a  force  of  15,923.  But  these  troops  took  no  part 
in  the  battle  of  Bull  Run ;  they  did  not  march  to  the  sound  of  the  enemy's 
guns.  The  Confederate  force  engaged  in  the  battle,  as  stated  by  General 
Beauregard  in  his  official  report,  was  32,672,  consisting  of  the  armies  of  the 
Potomac  and  Shenandoah,  the  brigade  of  General  Holmes,  Hampton's 
Legion,  Hill's  Virginia  regiment,  and  a  company  of  cavalry,  ninety  strong. 
There  were  twenty-six  cannon,  belonging  to  these  Confederate  forces.  The 
battle  was  planned  by  Beauregard.  He  had  the  larger  force  under  his  im 
mediate  command  ;  but,  being  the  junior  officer,  he  was  superseded  by 
Gen.  Joseph  E.  Johnston,  who  came  down  from  the  west  and  joined  him 
on  the  2Oth  of  July.  The  Confederates,  under  Beauregard,  fell  back  from 
Centreville  some  days  beforehand.  They  took  position  on  the  south  side  of 
Bull  Run,  the  fords  and  bridges  being  guarded  and  defended  against  the 
approach  of  the  Union  army.  General  McDowell  says  in  his  report,  in 
respect  to  the  number  of  his  command:  "We  crossed  Bull  Run  with 
about  18,000  men,  of  all  arms ;  the  Fifth  Division  (Miles')  and  Richardson's 
brigade  on  the  left,  at  Blackburn's  Ford  and  Centreville ;  and  Schenck's 
brigade  of  Tyler's  division  on  the  left  of  the  road,  near  the  stone  bridge, 
not  participating  in  the  main  action."  These  are  the  statements  of  the  com 
manding  generals  of  the  opposing  armies.  There  are  no  more  reliable 
authorities.  The  force  under  General  Patterson,  which  crossed  the  Potomac 
into  Virginia,  took  position  near  Charlestown.  It  was  rendered  inefficient 
in  consequence  of  the  fact  that  the  term  of  service  of  half  the  men  (eight 
regiments)  would  expire  on  or  before  the  twenty-fifth  of  the  month.  Pat 
terson  was  expected  to  hold  Johnston  in  check  by  threatening  Winchester. 
He  did  so  until  Johnston  ascertained  that  the  Pennsylvania  three-months 
militia  were  clamoring  to  be  discharged.  Then  the  latter  felt  that  it  would 
be  safe  to  move  ofF  and  join  his  forces  with  those  at  Manassas. 

McDowell's  first  plan  is  to  cross  Bull  Run  at  Blackburn's  Ford.  But  he 
finds  the  enemy,  on  the  i8th,  strongly  posted  at  that  point.  General  Tyler 


156  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

is  compelled  to  fall  back,  with  some  loss,  before  Beauregard.  These 
facts  lead  McDowell  to  pass  the  stream  higher  up,  so  as  to  turn  the  enemy's 
left  flank.  Accordingly,  on  the  morning  of  the  2ist,  he  crosses  without 
serious  obstacle.  He  drives  the  enemy  for  some  miles.  At  one  time  he 
flatters  himself  that  the  day  is  won  ;  but  about  two  o'clock,  when  the  men 
are  fatigued  with  their  long  inarch,  jaded  and  hungry,  the  Confederates  are 
re-enforced  by  the  arrival  of  6,000  of  Johnston's  men,  being  a  part  of  the 
army  of  the  Shenandoah.  This  re-enforcement  turns  the  scale.  A  panic 
seizes  the  Union  forces.  They  give  way.  The  retreat  becomes  a  rout. 
The  first  great  battle  of  the  war  results  in  an  inglorious  and  appalling  disas 
ter  to  the  Union  cause.  But  in  spite  of  the  completeness  of  the  overthrow, 
and  the  loss  of  prestige,  the  number  of  men  killed  and  wounded  by  the  op 
posing  forces  is  not  so  disproportionate  as  might  have  been  supposed.  The 
Union  loss,  according  to  the  report  of  Assistant  Adjutant-General  Fry, 
15481  killed,  1,011  wounded,  and  1,216  missing.  The  Confederate  loss,  as 
stated  by  their  officers,  is  387  killed,  1,582  wounded,  and  13  missing. 

General  McDowell  says,  in  apology  for  the  men  under  his  command, 
that  they  were  raw  militia  ;  and  that  they  had  to  make  a  long  march  on  the 
morning  of  the  2ist,  before  reaching  the  battle-field  ;  that  they  were  tired  and 
hungry ;  that  he  had  relied  upon  General  Patterson  to  keep  Johnston  em 
ployed  in  the  neighborhood  of  Winchester ;  and  upon  General  Butler  to  de 
tain  those  which  came  up  from  the  South.  It  unfortunately  happened,  also, 
that  two  forces  of  his  own  mistook  each  other  for  enemies  and  fell  to  fight 
ing,  by  which  his  plans  were  deranged.  It  would  seem  from  the  accounts 
that  the  battle  hardly  resulted  in  a  determinate  victory.  Both  sides  apolo 
gized.  General  Johnston  apologized  for  failing  to  pursue  his  routed  enemy 
and  capture  Washington.  His  statement  is,  that  he  had  no  cavalry ;  that  the 
United  States  troops  remained  apparently  firm  at  Centreville ;  that  a  strong 
force  occupied  Alexandria,  Arlington,  and  the  works  near  Georgetown  ;  and 
that  General  Patterson,  with  his  "  thirty  thousand  men"  could  reach  Wash 
ington  before  he  could.  These  obstacles,  except  the  last,  were  perhaps  as 
'formidable  as  Johnston  imagined.  But  the  official  returns  show  that  Pat 
terson  could  not  have  had  at  the  time  ten  thousand  troops.  He  reported 
that,  of  his  14,344  men,  eight  regiments  were  to  be  disbanded  before  the 
25th  of  July,  and  that  most  of  them  had  already  been  discharged ;  while 
his  re-enforcements,  though  ordered,  had  not  had  time  to  arrive  at  his  camp 
near  Charlestown.  General  Johnston's  monthly  report  for  June  30,  1861, 
shows  that  his  command  consisted  of  10,622  men  and  officers.  His  force 
was,  therefore,  larger  than  Patterson's  on  the  2ist  day  of  July. 

Details  of  this  battle,  or  riot,  as  it  has  been  called,  may  not  be  appro 
priate  in  a  volume  dedicated  particularly  to  "  Federal  legislation."  But  as 
Congress  had  been  in  session  from  the  4th  of  July  ;  and  as  its  members  par 
took  of  the  general  feeling  of  unrest  for  a  warlike  movement,  the  interest  in 


THE   CONGRESSMEN  AT  BULL  RUN.  157 

the  expected  pageantry  in  Virginia,  aroused  the  wildest  excitement.  There 
had  not  been  much  acrimonious  debate.  Much  business  had  been  done. 
Tariffs  were  changed  ;  loans  and  troops  authorized  ;  the  currency  regulated  ; 
and  everything  betokened  a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war  for  the  Union  ; 
when  lo!  "Onward  to  Richmond!"  "The  Army  moves!"  Before  the 
battle,  the  hopes  of  the  people  and  of  their  representatives  are  very  elate, 
and  almost  jocosely  festive.  Sanguine  newspaper  editors,  and  congressmen 
of  like  temperament  and  as  little  real  information,  are  impatient  with  the 
seemingly  passive  condition  of  the  army.  They  demand  an  immediate 
movement  upon  the  enemy's  works.  "On  to  Richmond!"  is  the  watch 
word  of  these  belligerent  gentlemen  in  their  quiet  homes.  In  the  hall  of 
the  lower  House,  the  gloom  of  the  preceding  three  weeks  of  inaction  is 
dispelled  by  the  stirring  movement.  The  writer  shares  the  excitement. 
There  are  some  military  members  eager  to  join  in  the  fray.  Among 
them  are  Col.  William  A.  Richardson,  of  Illinois,  a  soldier  of  the  Mexi 
can  War ;  Gen.  John  A.  Logan,  of  like  martial  fame ;  Isaiah  Morris, 
also  of  Illinois  ;  Albert  G.  Riddle,  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  an  eminent  lawyer 
and  a  gallant  man  ;  John  A.  Gurley,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  a  Universalist 
minister,  and  Alfred  Ely,  of  Rochester.  Senators  Wade  and  Chandler 
join  in  the  attack.  The  writer  feels  the  martial  contagion.  He  prepares  to 
go  with  his  gallant  friends  to  the  front.  If  he  cannot  carry  a  musket,  as 
his  comrades  propose,  he  can  observe  the  result  with  equanimity.  To  this 
end,  he  procures  a  pass  for  that  particular  purpose.  He  here  makes  a 
tender  to  the  reader  of  that  treasured  memento  of  the  war : 

"  HEAD  QUARTERS, 
MILITARY  DEPARTMENT  OF  WASHINGTON, 

July  15,  1861. 

Pass  Hon.  Mr.  Cox  over  the  bridges  and  within  the  lines 
By  order  of  General  Mansfield,  Commanding : 

DRAKE  DEKAY, 

Aide-de-  Camp. 
'TURN  OVER. 


It  is  understood  that  the  within  named  and  subscriber  accepts  it,  upon 
his  word  of  honor  that  he  is  and  will  be  ever  loyal  to  the  United  States  ;  and 
if  hereafter  found  in  arms  against  the  Union,  or  in  ?ny  way  aiding  her  ene 
mies,  the  penalty  will  be  death." 

By  turning  over  this  now  yellow  and  patched  souvenir  of  the  first  battle 
of  the  war,  the  terrible  obligation,  with  its  death  penalty,  smites  the  soul 
afresh.  But  the  writer  was  not  destined  for  that  war ;  at  least,  fate  forbade 


158  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

an  encounter  of  its  inglorious  Bull  Run  hardships.  The  members  were  to 
go  in  carriages  to  the  front.  The  writer's  seat  had  been  preoccupied  by 
some  soldier  in  an  emergency  to  join  his  command.  He  was  thus  ousted  of 
his  right.  Still,  many  of  his  constituents  were  there.  One  of  them,  from 
Pickaway  County,  Ohio,  like  the  celebrated  contractor  of  the  Revolution, 
was  there,  crying  "  Beef!  Beef!  "  He  had  brought  on  to  Washington  and 
sold  to  the  government,  three  hundred  head  of  cattle.  He  came  to  tell  his 
member  of  his  good  luck.  He  would  take  those  cattle  on  the  hoof  to  Rich 
mond,  or  perish.  He  would  furnish  the  troops  fresh  beef  by  the  way,  or 
die.  What  became  of  them,  the  sequel  reveals. 

With  bated  breath,  Congress  awaits  the  issue.  Its  business  lags.  Its 
members  gossip  in  the  rear  of  the  seats  and  in  the  cloak-rooms.  At  length 
dispatches  come.  They  are  read  at  the  clerk's  desk.  Then  Bull  Run  comes 
in, —  preceded  by  the  Pickaway  contractor's  cattle  on  a  stampede.  Then 
come  intelligent  contrabands  and  an  incongruous  array  of  wearied  soldiers 
in  dusty  uniforms.  What  of  the  Senators  and  Representatives?  Chandler, 
Wade,  Richardson,  Logan,  Gurley,  Morris,  and  Riddle  return  safely. 
Ely  is  borne  by  his  resistless  patriotism,  darkly  and  fearfully  afar.  The 
Black  Horse  Cavalry  of  the  enemy  carry  him  into  Richmond.  Libby 
Prison  receives  him,  and  his  goodness  of  heart  and  ample  means  enable  him 
to  aid  his  fellow-prisoners.  Mr.  Riddle  relates  how  his  company  had  been 
charged  upon  by  wild  riders  of  sable  horses:  "It  seemed,"  said  he,  in  a 
deliberately  penned  description,  "  as  if  the  very  devil  of  panic  and  cowardice 
seized  every  mortal  soldier,  officer,  citizen,  and  teamster.  No  officer  tried  to 
rally  the  soldiers,  or  do  anything,  except  to  spring  and  run  toward  Centre- 
ville.  There  never  was  anything  like  it  for  causeless,  sheer,  absolute,  absurd 
cowardice,  or  rather  panic,  on  this  miserable  earth  before.  Off  they  went, 
one  and  all ;  off  down  the  highway,  over  across  fields,  towards  the  woods,  any 
where,  everywhere,  to  escape.  Well,  the  further  they  ran  the  more  fright 
ened  they  grew,  and  although  we  moved  on  as  rapidly  as  we  could,  the 
fugitives  passed  us  by  scores.  To  enable  them  better  to  run,  they  threw 
away  their  blankets,  knapsacks,  canteens,  and  finally  muskets,  cartridge- 
boxes,  and  everything  else.  We  called  to  them,  tried  to  tell  them  there  was 
no  danger,  called  them  to  stop,  implored  them  to  stand.  We  called  them 
cowards,  denounced  them  in  the  most  offensive  terms,  put  out  our  heavy  re 
volvers,  and  threatened  to  shoot  them,  but  all  in  vain  ;  a  cruel,  crazy,  mad, 
hopeless  panic  possessed  them,  and  communicated  to  everybody  about  in 
front  and  rear.  The  heat  was  awful,  although  now  about  six  ;  the  men  were 
exhausted  —  their  mouths  gaped,  their  lips  cracked  and  blackened  with  the 
powder  of  the  cartridges  they  had  bitten  off  in  the  battle,  their  eyes  starting 
in  frenzy ;  no  mortal  ever  saw  such  a  mass  of  ghastly  wretches.  As  we 
came  on,  borne  along  with  the  mass,  unable  to  go  ahead  or  pause,  or  draw 
out  of  it,  with  the  street  blocked  with  flying  baggage- wagons,  before  and 


GENERAL  McCLELLAN  AND  HIS  CRITICS.  159 

behind,  thundering  and  crashing  on,  we  were  every  moment  exposed  to 
imminent  danger  of  being  upset,  or  crushed,  or  of  breaking  down  ;  and  for 
the  first  time  on  this  strange  day  I  felt  a  little  sinking  of  the  heart,  and 
doubt  whether  we  could  avoid  destruction  in  the  immense  throng  about  us  ; 
and  nothing  but  the  remarkable  skill  of  our  driver,  and  the  strength  of  our 
carriage  and  endurance  of  our  horses  saved  us.  Another  source  of  peril  be 
set  us.  As  we  passed  the  poor,  demented,  exhausted  wretches  who  could 
not  climb  into  the  high,  close  baggage-wagons,  they  made  frantic  efforts  to 
get  on  to  and  into  our  carriage.  They  grasped  it  everywhere,  and  got  on  to 
it,  into  it,  over  it,  and  implored  us  every  way  to  take  them  on." 

No  more  graphic  picture  has  since  been  presented  of  the  race  of  this 
army  from  an  imaginary  pursuit.  The  pencil  of  a  David  could  not  do  it  jus 
tice.  No  colors  can  be  harmonized  for  such  a  chaos.  De  Quincy's  "  Flight 
of  a  Tartar  tribe,"  is  far  less  veracious  and  not  more  thrilling. 

General  McClellan  takes  command  soon  after  this  battle,  vice  General 
McDowell,  removed.  It  is  not  long  before  the  congressional  critics  are 
pursuing  him  for  holding  back  the  eager  soldiery.  They  impute  his  seeming 
inactivity  to  fear  of  "  Quaker  guns."  The  radical  cabal  in  congress,  led  by 
Senator  Wade  and  re-enforced  by  Secretary  Stanton,  desire  his  removal. 
Among  others  who  are  thus  eager  is  the  Hon.  and  Rev.  John  A.  Gurley,  of 
Ohio.  It  was  the  writer's  fortune  to  obtain  the  floor  for  a  reply  to  a  speech 
of  his  which  abounded  in  strictures  on  McClellan.  The  hopes  of  the  people 
were  centered  in  General  McClellan.  How  could  the  effect  of  these  attacks 
on  that  favorite  general  be  nullified  ?  How  could  Mr.  Gurley's  villifications 
be  turned  to  the  account  of  the  Republic  ?  The  writer  happily  thought  of  the 
reverend  member's  performance  at  Bull  Run,  of  which  full  accounts  had 
been  received.  The  ad  hominem  and  ad  risum  argumentation  occurred  to 
him,  albeit  then  unused  to  this  mood  and  mode.  After  repelling  the  attack 
of  the  preacher  upon  that  unity  which  is  indispensable  to  all  commands, 
in  or  out  of  the  army,  and  what  was  especially  needed  then,  as  personified 
in  General  McClellan  ;  and  after  defending  the  President,  who  was  attacked 
for  retaining  General  McClellan  in  chief  command,  the  author  of  this  vol 
ume,  addressing  the  Chair,  said  : 

uSir:  My  colleague  —  Mr.  Gurley  —  compels  me  to  examine  into  his 
merits  as  a  military  critic  particularly  ;  and  also  into  the  propriety  of  criticis 
ing  military  '  movements '  here  in  Congress  and  elsewhere  by  civilians.  My 
colleague  is  not  a  military  man  by  education,  nor  a  soldier,  like  FalstafF,  on 
instinct.  His  profession  was  that  of  a  gospeller.  His  studies  do  not  fit  him 
to  discuss  martial  subjects.  We  do  not  go  to  a  blacksmith  to  have  our  watch 
repaired,  nor  to  a  watchmaker  to  have  our  horse  shod.  We  do  not  go  to  Car 
olina  for  cheese,  nor  to  the  Western  Reserve  for  cotton.  Criticism  on  the  art 
of  war,  to  be  valuable,  must  be  backed  by  specific  study  and  experience. 
What  has  been  the  study  and  the  military  experience  of  my  colleague?' 


160  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

There  will  be,  Mr.  Chairman,"  said  the  writer,  "  empyrics  in  medicine,  pre 
tenders  in  religion,  pettifoggers  in  law,  mushrooms  in  vegetation,  secession 
ists  in  governments,  and  snobs  in  society ;  and  we  must  not  be  surprised 
at  military  wiseacres  in  Congress  !  Since  my  colleague  has  hurled  the  glove 
at  McClellan,  I  have  a  right  to  examine  his  claims  as  a  critic.  He  admits 
being  at  Bull  Run.  His  masterly  activity  on  the  retreat  he  admits.  How 
that  retreat  was  effected  we  only  know  from  rumor.  My  colleague,  after  his 
fatiguing  race  .to  Centreville,  and  having  passed  that  point  with  the  speed  of 
Gilpin  —  and  not  having  the  benefit  of  a  carriage  like  the  congressman  who 
kicked  out  of  it  the  tired  soldiers  besmutched  with  their  cartridges  in  battle — 
was  scampering  along  like  the  devil  in  Milton,  flying  — 

'  O'er  bog  or  steep,  through  strait,  rough,  dense,  or  rare, 
With  head,  hands,  wings,  or  feet  pursues  his  way, 
And  swims,  or  sinks,  or  wades,  or  creeps,  or  flies' — 

until  luckily  he  met — what  think  you,  noble  Representatives? — a  herd  of 
stampeded  cattle,  which  were  from  my  own  beloved  district — Texan  cattle, 
sir,  wintered  in  the  Scioto  valley,  and  selected  by  their  drover  for  their 
stampeding  propensity.  Seizing  upon  the  extreme  rear  of  a  noble  bull,  the 
Reverend  antl  Honorable  gentleman  was  borne  from  the  field,  holding  on 
with  vigorous  prehension  to  the  tail  of  that  animal !  There  was  a  Bull  Run 
indeed  !  " 

i 'Mr.  EDGERTON.  I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  It  is  out  of  order  for 
members  of  the  House  to  applaud,  cheer,  or  laugh  in  the  manner  they  have 
been  doing,  and  I  submit — 

"  The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Chair  is  satisfied  that  when  gentlemen  consider 
the  impropriety  of  any  disturbance,  it  will  not  occur  again. 

"Mr.  WYCKLIFFE.  I  acknowledge  a  violation  of  order.  I  laughed; 
but  for  my  life's  sake  I  could  not  help  it." 

The  writer,  or  rather  the  speaker,  proceeded:  "I  will  do  justice  to  my 
colleague.  I  will  put  this  as  an  apocryphal  case.  I  am  glad  to  do  justice 
to  him,  and  to  that  noble  animal  of  my  constituent,  to  whom  the  gentleman 
should  have  apologized,  if  the  story  were  true.  I  was  about  to  commend  this 
strategy  of  my  colleague,  for  its  quick  sense  of  the  commissary  advantages. 
But  I  deprecate  his  drawing  on  that,  or  any  experience  at  Bull  Run,  to  read 
the  gifted  McClellan  and  this  Congress  a  homily  on  military  affairs.  The 
ancient  warriors  rode  in  their  scythed  chariots  ;  the  warriors  on  the  South 
American  pampas  dash  off*  with  their  lasso  on  horseback  ;  the  ancient  Ger 
mans  went  into  battle  as  our  Indians  do,  with  terrific  yells  and  in  painted 
horror ;  the  courtly  knight  dashed  into  the  tourney  with  iron-clad  armor 
and  vizor  down.  Various  as  human  ingenuity  are  the  modes  of  human  war 
fare,  both  on  the  advance  and  in  retreat ;  but  never,  sir,  in  the  accounts  of 
Xenophon  or  Marshal  Saxe  ;  from  the  time  of  Joshua  to  General  Taylor ; 


THE  REVEREND  MR.  GURLEY  AT  BULL  RUN.  l6l 

nor  in  the  contests  of  Achilles,  or  even  of  Garibaldi,  have  we  so  unique  a 
performance  as  this  supposititious  race  of  my  constituent's  Durham  with  my 
colleague,  from  the  fields  of  Bull  Run.  Does  he  claim  that  this  exploit,  if 
true,  would  make  him  a  military  expert? 

"  The  only  parallel  I  can  find  for  my  colleague  is  the  description  which  is 
given  of  Job's  war-horse  :  4  Canst  thou  make  him  afraid  as  a  grasshopper  ? 
the  glory  of  his  nostrils  is  terrible.  He  paweth  in  the  valley,  and  rejoiceth 
in  his  strength.  He  swalloweth  the  ground  with  fierceness  and  rage  ;  neither 
believeth  he  that  it  is  the  sound  of  the  trumpet.  He  saith  among  the  trum 
pets,  ha  !  ha  !  and  he  smelleth  the  battle  afar  off*.'  The  parallel  fails  only  in 
one  regard.  While  the  war-horse  of  Job  was  advancing,  that  of  my  col 
league  was  retreating.  Leaving  his  campaign  in  Missouri  unfinished,  he 
flew  from  Fremont  to  Ohio,  with  the  '  certainty,  celerity,  and  security '  of 
a  star  bid  in  the  Post-Office  Department. 

"  I  wish  that  my  colleague  would  cultivate  some  faith  in  General  McClellan. 
He  is  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  a  Universalist  minister,  and  is  full  of  faith  in 
the  salvation  of  all  men.  I  glory  in  according  to  him  the  fullest  '  soul 
liberty'  in  religion.  His  creed  includes  the  salvation  of  all  —  embracing  in 
its  comprehensive  faith  Davis,  Wigfall,  and  all  that  crowd  of  conspicuous 
sinners.  He  believes  that  Zollicofter  is  now  in  glory  ;  he  can  even  see  Hum 
phrey  Marshall  entering,  as  my  colleague  from  Cleveland  once  said  of  John 
Brown,  'the  pearly  gates  of  Paradise'  —  and  that  too  without  the  enlarge 
ment  of  the  gates  of  Paradise  or  the  lessening  of  the  bulk  of  Marshall.  He 
can,  with  his  eye  of  faith,  and  in  his  universal  benevolence,  see  the  Fals- 
taffian  Kentuckian  squeeze  through  the  celestial  doors,  and  larding  the  golden 
pavements  of  the  New  Jerusalem  ;  but  he  cannot  exercise  a  little  faith,  just 
the  size  of  a  mustard  seed,  in  the  prescience,  skill,  and  sagacity  of  our  ac 
complished  young  general. 

u  Oh !  if  there  is  one  thing  more  beautiful  than  another,  it  is  that  trust 
which  we  repose  in  another  in  the  dark  hours  of  trial  and  death.  It  is  said 
that  reason  was  the  first-born,  but  faith  inherits  the  blessing.  Reason  is  apt 
to  be  fallible,  short-sighted,  eager,  impetuous,  and  impatient  of  contradiction  ; 
while  faith  is  gentle  and  docile,  ever  ready  to  listen  to  the  voice  by  which 
alone  truth  and  wisdom  can  effectually  reach  her.  God  has  created  two 
lights  —  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  busy  day  —  reason  ;  the  lesser  to  rule 
the  contemplative  night  —  faith  ;  but  faith  shines  only  so  long  as  she  reflects 
something  of  the  illumination  of  the  brighter  orb.  Where  a  man  has  no 
faith  he  has  no  light  of  reason.  There  are  some  things  in  which  a  man 
must  exercise  his  trust.  The  American  people,  unlike  my  colleague,  have 
read  the  history  of  General  McClellan.  They  know  his  military  studies,  his 
travel  and  observation,  his  practical  railroad  life,  his  mode  of  dealing  with 
men  and  bodies  of  men,  his  prudential  reserve,  his  unfailing  patience,  patriot 
ism,  and  confidence  in  his  own  resources.  They  know  that  he  is  safe, 


162  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

if  not  brilliant ;  that  his  knowledge  of  topography,  engineering,  and  field 
strategy,  his  method  and  industry,  and  his  quick  apprehension  of  military 
strength  and  weakness,  eminently  fit  him  for  this  high  command.  Knowing 
this  and  reasoning  upon  this,  now  that  the  night  is  upon  us,  they  will  keep 
their  faith  in  him,  and  no  hostile  criticism  of  the  gentleman  here  can  shake 
that  faith.  The  attack  of  my  colleague  is  like  that  of  a  '  pigmy  with  a 
straw  against  a  giant  cased  in  armor.' 

4 'My  colleague  is  not  satisfied  with  anything  short  of  an  advance  at 
every  hazard.  He  is  not  satisfied  with  the  President,  for  the  latter  defers 
to  McClellan ;  not  satisfied  with  any  commander-in-chief,  for  no  one  can 
command  even  three  hundred  thousand  men  ;  not  satisfied  with  what  has  been 
done  ;  not  satisfied  with  what  is  to  be  done.  He  would  discourage  all  our 
efforts,  and  make  taxation  weigh  like  a  useless  burden  on  an  anxious  and 
saddened  people.  His  policy  would  disorganize  the  army,  and  realize  his. 
theology  by  making  a  hell  on  earth,  without  giving  us  the  satisfaction  of  a 
future  state." 

The  writer  then  answered  in  detail,  the  frivolous  philippic  of  the  reverend 
member  against  General  McClellan.  Nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  has  gone 
by  since  that  debate.  It  was  had  on  the  last  of  January,  1862.  Three  years, 
afterwards,  on  the  same  day  of  the  same  month,  and  after  the  reverend  mem 
ber  from  Ohio  had  passed  that  bourne  where  he  could  solve  the  problems 
of  the  future  state,  his  anti-slavery  ideas  were  crystallized  in  the  thirteenth 
amendment  of  the  Constitution.  But  in  the  beginning  of  1861,  the  country 
was  thoroughly  disgusted  with  the  part  congressmen  played  at  Bull  Run. 
Ah  !  with  what  jocund  levity  the  House  adjourned  to  go  over  to  see  the 
army  march  upon  Richmond.  Not  one  of  the  members  ever  got  there, 
except  Mr.  Ely.  The  writer  opposed  the  adjournment,  lest  by  going 
over  the  river,  they  would  only  get  in  the  way  of  the  soldiers.  It  turned 
out  that  the  soldiers  got  in  the  way  of  the  congressmen.  But  when  the 
grand  consummation  of  the  war  came,  in  the  ostracism  of  slavery  forever, 
the  soldiers  got  out  of  the  way  of  the  congressmen.  The  result  showed, 
that  in  the  order  of  events,  even  war  has  an  inexorable  logic  and  law  of 
its  own.  "  God  works  in  a  mysterious  way,  his  wonders  to  perform." 

The  Bull  Run  disaster  led  to  many  changes.  General  Patterson  wras 
superseded  by  Gen.  Nathaniel  P.  Banks.  This  was  a  consequence  of  his 
failure  to  hold  Johnston  in  check.  On  the  second  day  of  August,  Con 
gress  was  still  in  session.  The  war  taxes  were  increased,  and  the  President 
was  authorized  to  call  out  500,000  men  for  three  years,  or  during  the  war. 
General  McClellan  began  a  thorough  reorganization  of  the  Army  of  the 
Potomac.  It  was  a  much-needed  work,  for  which  he  was  well  qualified. 
For  this,  the  country  still  owes  him  a  debt  of  gratitude.  The  military 
events  in  other  quarters,  immediately  preceding  or  following  the  Bull  Run 
disaster  were,  in  the  main,  favorable  to  the  government.  There  were 


THE  MISSOURI  CAMPAIGN  AND  BALL'S  BLUFF.  163 

skirmishes  innumerable,  with  varied  success,  as  well  as  some  actions  of 
greater  importance.  In  Missouri,  the  plans  of  the  secession  leaders  for 
drawing  the  state  mto  alliance  with  the  Confederacy  were  frustrated  by  the 
intrepidity  of  Capt.  Nathaniel  Lyon,  of  the  Second  United  States  Infantry. 
Governor  Jackson  endeavored  to  preserve  a  neutrality  ;  but  ne  was  organiz 
ing  the  militia,  as  it  was  alleged,  in  concert  with  the  Confederates.  It  was 
also  said  that  cannon  and  small  arms  were  sent  to  St.  Louis,  where  a  mili 
tary  camp  was  formed  which  bore  the  name  of  the  governor.  On  the  nth 
of  May,  Captain  Lyon,  at  the  head  of  a  volunteer  force  and  a  few  regu 
lars,  demanded  of  Brig. -Gen.  Daniel  M.  Frost  the  surrender  of  the  camp, 
and  of  the  men  he  was  drilling  for  service  in  the  Confederacy.  Frost  en 
tered  a  protest,  and  surrendered.  His  militia  numbered  639  men,  and  fifty 
officers.  They  had  six  field-pieces,  1,200  rifle  muskets,  together  with  am 
munition  and  other  war  material.  These  military  equipments  had  been 
sent  up  the  river  and  addressed  to  a  well-known  Union  firm  of  merchants, 
but  not  delivered  to  them.  As  the  prisoners  were  being  led  to  the  arsenal, 
the  secession  mob  fired  upon  Lyon's  force,  when  the  latter  returned  the 
fire.  Several  of  the  rioters  were  killed.  Lyon  was  rapidly  promoted  in  con 
sequence  of  this  energetic  action.  He  was  made  a  brigadier-general  of  vol 
unteers,  immediately.  But  his  active  career  was  soon  brought  to  a  close. 
He  was  killed  in  the  battle  of  Wilson's  Creek,  Missouri,  on  the  ninth  day  of 
August,  fighting  against  great  odds.  The  Unionists  were  compelled  to  re 
treat,  but  the  result  was  otherwise  without  importance. 

General  Sigel,  with  950  men,  encountered  the  Confederates  under  Gen 
eral  Rains,  commanding  1,800  men,  at  Carthage,  in  the  same  state,  and 
although  compelled  to  retire,  he  did  so  in  good  order,  and  without  serious 
loss.  On  the  2oth  of  September,  Colonel  Mulligan,  with  2,500  men,  surren 
dered  the  town  of  Lexington,  Missouri,  to  a  large  Confederate  force,  under 
General  Price,  estimated  at  20,000  men.  It  was,  however,  soon  evacuated, 
and  reoccupied  by  the  Union  forces. 

At  Belmont,  in  southeastern  Missouri,  the  Union  forces  under  Brig.- 
Gen.  U.  S.  Grant,  made  an  attack  upon  the  Confederates.  This  was  in 
obedience  to  orders  from  General  Halleck,  who  was  in  command  of  the 
Western  Department,  with  headquarters  at  St.  Louis.  After  some  sharp 
fighting,  the  Confederates  were  re-enforced.  General  Grant  fell  back,  and 
re-embarked  on  his  transports.  The  object  of  the  advance,  according  to  the 
order  from  General  Halleck,  was  to  threaten,  rather  than  to  assail  the  enemy  ; 
and  General  Grant  claims  to  have  accomplished  what  he  undertook.  He 
states  the  enemy's  loss  to  be  greater  than  his  own,  and  that  he  brought  off 
175  prisoners.  The  object  seems  to  have  been  to  prevent  Gen.  Jeff.  Thomp 
son,  who  was  in  command,  from  re-enforcing  General  Price.  This  object 
was  accomplished. 

But  the  greatest  disaster  to  the  Union  arms  during  1861,  after  Bull  Run, 


164  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

occurred  at  what  is  known  as  Edwards'  Ferry,  or  Ball's  Bluff.  This  point 
is  a  few  miles  above  the  Great  Falls  of  the  Potomac.  A  force  of  about  fif 
teen  hundred  men  of  Gen.  Charles  P.  Stone's  command,  in  making  a 
reconnoissance,  under  Colonel  Baker,  of  Oregon,  crossed  the  river  at  that 
point.  They  were  met  by  a  greatly  superior  force  of  the  enemy.  They 
were  driven  back  into  the  stream,  with  great  slaughter.  The  Union  loss 
was  above  nine  hundred.  The  Confederate  loss  was  three  hundred.  Col 
onel  Baker,  the  eloquent  Senator  from  Oregon,  was  among  the  killed.  Gen 
eral  Stone  was  greatly  blamed  for  this  disaster.  He  was  slandered  because 
of  it,  and  then  most  outrageously  treated.  He  was  a  native  of  Massachusetts. 
He  was  a  Democrat.  He  had  served  in  Mexico  with  distinction.  It  was 
his  skill,  under  the  venerable  Scott,  that  established  the  line  of  fortifica 
tions  around  the  capital  for  its  safety.  He  was  a  man  of  a  sensitive  nature, 
and  as  courageous  as  he  was  expert  in  the  art  of  war.  Without  probable  or 
any  cause,  he  was  arrested  on  a  charge  of  treason.  Although  asserting 
his  innocence  and  demanding  a  trial,  he  was  released  without  a  word  of 
explanation.  Not  a  word  has  been  given  to  this  day.  After  the  war,  he 
went  to  Egypt.  He  is  known  there  as  Stone  Pasha.  He  became  the  chief- 
of-staff  of  the  Egyptian  army.  He  reconstructed  it.  He  was  with  the  ex- 
Khedive  and  the  present  Khedive  in  all  the  early  and  later  vicissitudes  of 
that  ill-starred  land.  He  survives  nearly  all  of  his  detractors  and  persecu 
tors,  and  has  returned  to  America,  warmly  welcomed  by  all,  as  a  man  with 
out  a  stain  and  a  soldier  without  reproach.  He  is  now  engaged  in  super 
vising  the  erection  of  the  Bartholdi  statue,  in  New-York  Harbor.  His 
case,  like  that  of  Gen.  Fitz  John  Porter,  cries  aloud  for  rectification  by  a 
practical  remedy,  as  it  has  been  rectified  in  history. 

On  the  Atlantic  coast,  where  the  navy  co-operated  with  the  military  arm, 
the  most  substantial  and  permanent  successes  were  achieved.  The  expedi 
tion  against  Hatteras,  on  the  coast  of  North  Carolina,  sailed  from  Fortress 
Monroe  on  Monday,  the  twenty-fifth  day  of  August.  It  consisted  of  the 
United  States  steamers  Minnesota,  Captain  Van  Brune ;  the  Wabash,  Cap 
tain  Mercer ;  the  Monticello,  Commander  Gillis  ;  the  Pawnee,  Commander 
Rowan ;  and  the  Harriet  Lane,  Captain  Faunce.  The  broad  pennant  of 
Commodore  S.  H.  Stringham,  the  commander  of  the  naval  force,was  hoisted 
on  the  Minnesota.  The  military  force,  commanded  by  Maj.-Gen.  Benjamin 
F.  Butler,  consisted  of  880  men,  500  of  whom  belonged  to  the  Twentieth 
Regiment  New-York  volunteers,  under  Col.  Max  Weber  ;  220  of  the  Ninth 
New- York  volunteers  (Hawkins'  Zouaves),  under  command  of  Col.  R.  C. 
Hawkins  ;  100  of  the  Union  Coast  Guard,  commanded  by  Captain  Nixon  ; 
and  sixty  of  the  Second  United  States  Artillery,  under  Lieutenant  Lamed. 

The  expedition  arrived  off  Hatteras  Inlet  on  Tuesday,  the  26th  of 
August.  That  inlet  lies  eighteen  miles  southwest  of  the  Cape.  The  Con 
federates  had  erected  two  strong  fortifications  of  earth,  or  sand,  near  the 


THE  TAKING  OF  PORT  ROYAL.  165 

inlet;  one  bearing  the  name  Hatteras,  and  armed  with  ten  thirty-two 
pounders,  and  another  piece.  The  other,  called  Fort  Clark,  was  armed 
with  five  guns.  The  ships  of  war  opened  fire  upon  the  forts,  and  soon 
silenced  them,  and  315  soldiers  were  landed.  Night  came  on  and  these 
men  were  left  in  a  rather  dangerous  position.  They  took  possession  of 
the  smaller  fort,  however,  and  rendered  efficient  service  the  next  morning. 
It  was  believed  that  the  Confederate  commander  meant  to  surrender,  when  the 
firing  ceased ;  but  when  one  of  the  smaller  vessels  approached  within  600 
yards,  Fort  Hatteras  again  opened  fire.  It  was  again  silenced,  however, 
by  the  accurate  fire  from  the  ships.  It  then  gave  the  signal  for  surrender. 
After  some  parleying,  and  insisting  on  terms,  the  surrender  was  made  on 
the  single  condition  that  the  Confederates  were  to  be  treated  as  prisoners 
of  war.  The  capitulation  embraced  the  surrender  of  715  men,  including  the 
commander,  Commodore  Barren,  the  acting  Confederate  Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  and  Major  Bradford,  the  Chief  of  Ordnance,  with  the  two  forts, 
arms,  powder,  cannon,  cotton,  and  provisions.  But  this  was  the  smallest 
part  of  the  achievement.  The  surrender  opened  the  North  Carolina 
Sounds,  —  large  inland  seas, — with  the  greater  part  of  the  coast  of  the  state. 
This  acquisition  was  permanent.  It  was  of  great  importance. 

The  expedition  to  Port  Royal,  in  South  Carolina,  midway  between 
Charleston  and  Savannah,  was  on  a  much  grander  scale.  It  consisted  of 
two  ships  of  war,  the  Wabash  and  Susquehanna,  fourteen  gunboats,  the 
frigate  Vandalia,  and  thirty-three  transports,  which  conveyed  15,000  troops. 
Commodore  Samuel  F.  Dupont  commanded  the  naval  force,  and  Maj.- 
Gen.  Thomas  W.  Sherman,  the  military.  The  latter  consisted  of  three 
brigades,  commanded  respectively  by  Brigadier-Generals,  Egbert  S.  Viele, 
now  a  member  of  Congress  from  New- York  City,  Isaac  J.  Stevens,  and 
Horatio  G.  Wright.  These  officers  were  among  the  most  accomplished 
engineers  of  the  army.  The  expedition  consisted  of  fifty  vessels.  It  sailed 
from  Fortress  Monroe  on  the  2pth  of  October.  It  had  been  preceded  by 
a  fleet  of  twenty-five  coal  vessels.  The  weather  was  unsettled.  It  blew  a 
hurricane  by  the  ist  of  November.  The  fleet  was  scattered.  On  the  next 
morning,  only  one  sail  was  visible  from  the  mast  of  the  flag-ship.  The  wind 
moderated  on  Sunday,  the  2d  of  November,  and  the  fleet  gradually  came 
in  sight,  except  two  of  the  transports,  which  sank.  Only  seven  lives  were 
lost.  Commodore  Dupont,  with  twenty-five  of  his  vessels,  anchored  off  the 
bar  of  Port  Royal  on  the  4th.  He  proceeded  to  search  for  the  channel.  It 
was  found  and  buoyed.  On  the  same  day  the  gunboats  and  light  transports 
passed  inside  the  bar,  and  were  anchored.  The  Confederate  fleet,  under 
Commodore  Tatnall,  consisted  of  six  gunboats.  They  took  refuge  under  the 
guns  of  the  fortifications.  The  next  day  the  Wabash  and  Susquehanna, 
with  the  larger  transports,  crossed  the  bar.  The  assault  on  the  Confederate 
works  was  postponed  until  the  7th,  in  consequence  of  a  storm.  At  half- 


l66  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

past  nine  o'clock  of  that,  day,  a  heavy  cannonade  was  opened  upon  the 
two  forts,  Walker  and  Beauregard,  and  their  outposts.  They  were  mounted 
with  heavy  guns  of  the  most  approved  pattern.  The  bombardment  lasted 
for  some  hours.  The  forts  were  silenced.  The  landing  force  found  them 
deserted  by  their  garrisons,  who  had  fled  in  terror,  leaving  their  clothing, 
their  papers,  and  even  their  watches.  The  loss  on  the  part  of  the  gov 
ernment  was  eight  killed,  and  twenty-three  wounded.  The  Confederate  loss 
was  not  known,  but  it  was  believed  to  be  far  more  considerable.  The  forts 
contained  forty-eight  cannon,  all  but  five  in  excellent  order,  and  of  large  cali 
bre.  A  considerable  amount  of  ammunition  and  stores  was  also  captured. 
On  the  9th,  the  town  of  Beaufort  was  found  to  be  deserted.  It  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  negroes.  The  town  and  adjacent  islands  were  occupied  by  the 
Union  forces,  including  Tybee  Island,  at  the  entrance  of  the  Savannah  River. 
Hilton  Head  was  taken  by  the  troops  under  General  Sherman.  It  became 
the  permanent  base  of  operations  against  South  Carolina  and  southeastern 
Georgia.  This  almost  bloodless  conquest,  like  that  of  Hatteras,  gave  a  per 
manent  lodgment  to  the  government  forces  upon  the  soil  of  South  Carolina, 
and  was  a  grand  strategic  acquisition.  In  each  of  these  successful  expe 
ditions,  the  military  accompaniments  had  little  more  to  do  than  take  posses 
sion  of  the  conquests  made  by  the  navy. 

Military  operations  upon  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  in  1862,  commenced  with 
another  expedition  to  North  Carolina.  The  naval  force  was  commanded  by 
Commodore  Goldsborough,  and  the  military  by  General  Burnside.  Although 
the  Union  forces  had  already  secured  an  entrance  to  the  sounds  and  rivers 
of  that  state,  by  the  capture  of  the  fortifications  at  Hatteras  Inlet,  a  farther 
advance  in  that  direction  was  desirable  in  order  to  shelter  the  war  ships  and 
transports  from  the  storms  which  are  apt  to  be  encountered  on  the  coast. 
With  this  object  in  view,  a  fleet  of  one  hundred  vessels,  consisting  of  nineteen 
gunboats  and  other  small  armed  vessels,  carrying  something  like  seventy- 
five  or  eighty  pieces  of  heavy  ordnance,  together  with  transports  for  16,000 
soldiers,  steamed  away  from  Fortress  Monroe  for  Hatteras  Inlet,  on  the  I2th 
of  January.  A  high  wind,  which  at  length  developed  into  a  severe  gale, 
rendered  it  impossible  for  all  the  larger  vessels  to  enter  the  sound  through 
the  narrow  and  tortuous  channel.  The  result  was  the  loss  of  some  of  the 
vessels,  together  with  valuable  lives.  The  fortifications  at  the  inlet,  which 
were  taken  in  the  preceding  autumn  by  General  Butler  and  Commodore 
Stringham,  _»nd  manned  by  the  soldiers  under  them,  were  still  held  by  the 
Federal  troops,  but  the  great  severity  of  the  protracted  storm  rendered  it  im 
practicable  for  the  expedition  to  proceed  further  before  the  5th  of  February. 
On  that  day  the  movement  against  Roanoke  Island  was  begun.  This  small, 
low  island,  about  ten  miles  in  length  and  two  or  three  in  breadth,  is  situated 
in  the  strait  which  connects  Albemarle  and  Pamlico  Sounds.  The  Con 
federates  had  fortified  it  and  manned  it  with  a  force  of  between  two  and  three 


THE  CAPTURE  OF  NEWBERN.  167 

thousand  men.  The  combined  forces  of  the  expedition  made  the  assault  on 
the  morning  of  the  yth.  The  Confederates,  commanded  by  Colonel  Shaw, 
formerly  a  member  of  the  United  States  House  of  Representatives,  made 
a  determined  resistance.  They  were  supported  by  a  fleet  of  gunboats,  five 
or  six  in  number.  The  fight  lasted  throughout  the  day  ;  but  on  the  8th,  Col. 
Shaw,  being  assailed  in  front  and  rear,  found  it  impracticable  to  continue  the 
contest.  He  surrendered,  with  his  garrison  of  2,000  men.  The  forts,  six  in 
number,  were  found  to  contain  forty  guns  and  3,000  stands  of  arms.  The 
Union  loss  was  thirty-five  killed  and  200  wounded.  The  Confederate  loss 
was  reported  by  them  to  be  sixteen  killed  and  thirty-nine  wounded. 

The  Union  gunboats  pursued  the  Confederate  fleet,  which  retreated  to 
Elizabeth  City.  There  it  was  captured.  That  town,  situated  on  Pasquotank 
River,  surrendered,  also.  The  old  towns  of  Edenton,  at  the  head  of  Albe- 
marle  Sound,  and  Washington,  on  the  Pamlico  or  Tar  River,  surrendered 
without  a  struggle.  At  the  latter  place  the  Union  sentiment  was  found  to 
be  very  strong.  This  fact  appears  from  the  report  of  a  Confederate  officer 
to  his  superiors. 

Newbern  was  the  next  object  of  attack.  It  is  situated  at  the  junction  of 
the  Neuse  and  Trent  rivers.  The  former  is  a  tributary  of  Pamlico  Sound. 
The  naval  force  was  under  command  of  Commodore  Rowan, —  Commodore 
Goldsborough  having  been  recalled  to  Fortress  Monroe.  The  expedition 
left  Hatteras  on  the  morning  of  March  I2th.  It  arrived  about  sunset  of 
the  same  day  at  Slocum's  Creek,  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Neuse,  about 
eighteen  miles  below  Newbern.  The  landing  of  the  troops  was  effected  the 
next  morning  under  cover  of  the  gunboats.  Then  a  march  of  twelve  miles, 
over  muddy  roads,  became  necessary  before  the  Confederate  line  of  defense 
was  reached.  The  road  runs  parallel  with  the  river.  The  gunboats  ren 
dered  efficient  service  by  shelling  it,  in  advance  of  the  march  of  the  troops. 
The  camp  was  formed  that  night,  one  mile  and  a  half  from  the  Confederate 
works.  Early  on  the  morning  of  the  i4th,  the  Confederate  works  were 
assailed  along  their  whole  extent  of  a  mile  and  a  half.  The  fight  lasted  four 
hours.  Their  defenders  gave  way  and  retreated  up  the  river,  in  the  direc 
tion  of  Newbern.  They  burnt  the  bridges  behind  them,  over  the  smaller 
streams,  and  destroyed  the  draw  of  the  railroad  bridge  over  the  Trent,  at 
Newbern.  The  retreating  Confederate  force,  consisting  of  eight  regiments 
of  infantry,  five  hundred  cavalry,  and  three  batteries  of  field  artillery,  each 
of  six  guns,  thus  escaped  capture.  They  were  commanded  by  Gen. 
Lawrence  O'B.  Branch  —  an  ex-member  of  the  Congress  —  in  the  absence 
of  General  Gatlin,  who  was  sick.  They  passed  on  through  Newbern,  leav 
ing  the  town  to  be  peaceably  taken  possession  of  by  General  Burnside. 
In  this  battle,  General  Foster  took  an  important  part.  The  Union  loss 
was  ninety-one  killed,  and  four  hundred  and  sixty-six  wounded.  The  Con 
federates,  who  fought  behind  breastworks,  suffered  considerably ;  but  not  so 


168  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

much  as  their  conquerors.  They  halted  in  their  retreat,  at  Tuscarora,  ten 
miles  above  Newbern.  General  Burnside  found  the  Confederate  works  de 
fended  by  forty-six  heavy  guns  and  three  batteries  of  light  artillery,  each  of 
six  guns,  all  of  which  fell  into  his  hands.  Two  steamboats,  with  several 
sailing  vessels,  and  large  quantities  of  ammunition  and  military  stores  were 
also  captured,  with  two  hundred  prisoners. 

The  harbor  of  Beaufort,  the  best  in  the  state,  with  the  town  of  that  name, 
Morehead  City,  and  Fort  Macon,  a  permanent  United  States  fortification 
which  commands  the  harbor,  were  surrendered  as  a  consequence  of  the 
capture  of  Newbern.  The  fort  withstood  a  bombardment  of  a  whole  day, 
when  its  commandant,  Colonel  White,  with  five  hundred  men,  surrendered 
with  the  honors  of  war.  It  had  been  seized  by  the  state  troops  of  North 
Carolina,  by  order  of  Governor  Ellis,  long  before  the  secession  ordinance 
was  passed.  The  loss  of  life  was  very  trifling.  On  the  side  of  the  govern 
ment  only  one  was  reported  killed ;  and  on  that  of  the  Confederates,  seven 
were  killed  and  eighteen  wounded.  The  effects  of  these  victories,  which 
closed  all  the  ports  of  the  state,  except  Wilmington,  were  permanent.  The 
naval  part  of  the  expedition  could  not  penetrate  beyond  Newbern  and  Wash 
ington.  The  latter  is  situated  upon  the  Tar  River,  not  far  from  Pamlico 
Sound.  The  military  force  was  not  strong  enough  to  venture  further  into 
the  interior  unsustained  by  the  gunboats ;  but  it  is  surprising  that  greater 
use  was  not  made  subsequently  of  these  important  conquests  on  the  coast  of 
North  Carolina. 

On  March  8th  and  gth  the  most  remarkable  battle  ever  known,  up  to  that 
time,  in  the  annals  of  naval  warfare  was  fought  in  Hampton  Roads.  The 
number  of  vessels  engaged  was  small  in  comparison  with  the  great  naval 
actions  of  modern  times.  But  the  defensive  armor  and  offensive  weapons 
employed,  demonstrated  the  utter  worthlessness  of  wooden  against  armored 
ships  in  combat.  At  once,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  a  whirling,  bewil 
dering  revolution  in  naval  architecture  was  the  result. 

About  one  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  the  8th,  the  Confederate  iron-plated 
steamer  Virginia  —  formerly  the  United  States  forty-gun  steam  frigate  Merri- 
mac  —  is  seen  coming  out  from  Norfolk.  She  moves  in  the  direction  of 
Newport  News,  near  which  place  lie  two  United  States  sailing  frigates,  the 
Congress  and  Cumberland.  The  Merrimac  had  been  scuttled  on  April  21, 
1861,  when  the  Union  naval  officers  abandoned  the  Gosport  Navy  Yard. 
The  Confederates  soon  raised  her  and  transformed  her  into  an  ironclad  ram 
of  formidable  power.  Her  hull  was  275  feet  long;  about  160  feet  of  the 
central  portion  was  covered  by  a  roof  of  wood  and  iron,  inclining  about 
thirty-six  degrees.  The  wooden  part  was  two  feet  thick  ;  it  consisted  of  oak 
plank,  4  by  12  inches,  laid  up  and  down  next  to  the  iron,  and  two  courses  of 
pine  ;  one  longitudinal  of  eight  inches  thickness,  the  other  twelve  inches  thick. 
The  intervening  space  on  top  was  closed  by  permanent  gratings  of  2-inch 


THE  MONITOR  AND  THE  VIRGINIA.  169 

square  iron,  21-2  inches  apart,  leaving  openings  for  four  hatcl 
near  each  end,  one  forward,  and  one  abaft  the  smoke-stack.  The  roof  did 
not  project  beyond  the  hull.  The  ends  of  the  shields  were  rounded.  The 
armor  was  four  inches  thick.  It  was  fastened  to  its  wooden  backing  by  i  3-8 
inch  bolts,  countersunk  and  secured  by  iron  nuts  and  washers.  The  plates 
were  eight  inches  wide  and  two  inches  thick.  The  hull,  extending  two  feet 
below  the  roof,  was  plated  with  i-inch  iron.  The  prow  was  of  cast-iron, 
wedge-shaped,  and  weighed  1,500  pounds.  It  was  about  two  feet  under 
water,  and  projected  two  feet  from  the  stem.  The  rudder  and  propeller  were 
both  exposed,  with  no  appliances  for  protection.  The  battery  consisted  of 
ten  guns,  four  single-banded  Brooke  rifles,  and  six  9-inch  Dahlgren  shell-guns. 
Two  of  the  rifles,  bow  and  stern  pivots,  were  y-inch,  of  14,500  pounds ;  the 
other  two  were  6. 4-inch,  32  pounds  calibre,  of  9,000  pounds,  one  being  on 
each  broadside.  The  9-inch  gun  on  the  side  nearest  the  furnace  was  fitted 
for  firing  hot  shot.  The  ammunition  for  this  gun  was  9-inch  solid  shot.  The 
engines  were  the  same  which  were  on  the  vessel  when  she  was  sunk,  and 
were  found  to  be  defective.  The  crew  numbered  320,  made  up  principally 
of  volunteers  from  the  army,  and  thirty  officers.  The  vessel  was  in  com 
mand  of  Flag-officer  Frank  Buchanan,  who  had  resigned  from  the  Union 
navy,  to  go  with  the  Confederacy. 

Thus  defended  against  shot  and  shell,  the  Virginia  presents  the  appear 
ance  of  a  huge  turtle.  The  fire  from  the  Cumberland,  which  is  the  first  to 
be  attacked  by  the  monster,  has  no  effect  upon  its  iron-plated  sides  and  roof, 
or  rounded  deck.  Every  shot  from  the  Virginia  tells  upon  the  wooden  sides 
of  the  Cumberland.  The  firing  is  immediately  followed  by  a  deadly  plunge 
of  the  ram  into  the  side  of  the  wooden  vessel.  The  broadside  fired  by  the 
Cumberland  just  as  the  Virginia  rams  her,  cuts  one  of  the  Virginia's  guns 
off  at  the  trunnions,  the  muzzle  off  another,  tears  up  the  carriage  of  her  bow 
pivot  gun,  sweeps  away  her  anchor,  boats,  and  howitzers,  riddles  her  smoke 
stack  and  steam-pipe,  and  kills  or  wounds  nineteen  men.  Bravely  done ! 
This  is  the  last  broadside  of  the  Cumberland.  She  is  sinking !  Her  gallant 
commander,  Lieut.  George  M.  Morris,  true  to  his  honored  name,  de 
livers  a  parting  fire  from  the  stern  guns,  as  his  ship  is  going  down  heroically, 
with  her  colors  flying.  A  hundred  or  more  of  the  crew  are  killed  in  the 
action,  or  drowned.  The  Virginia  is  aided  by  several  armed  steamers,  two 
of  which  come  down  the  James  River,  just  in  time  to  engage  in  the  conflict. 

Having  sunk  the  Cumberland,  the  Virginia  turns  upon  the  Congress,  which 
is  already  hotly  engaged  with  the  gunboats  attendant  on  the  ironclad.  The 
commanding  officer  of  the  Congress  has  witnessed  the  fate  of  the  Cumberland. 
He  heads  for  shoal  water — and  grounds  !  The  Virginia  now  selects  a  raking 
position  astern  of  the  Congress,  while  one  of  the  smaller  steamers  pours  in  a 
constant  fire  on  her  starboard  quarter.  Two  other  steamers  of  the  enemy 
approach  from  James  River,  also  firing  upon  the  unfortunate  frigate  with 
ll 


170        THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

precision  and  severe  effect.  The  guns  of  the  Congress  are  almost  entirely 
disabled,  and  her  gallant  commanding  officer,  young  Lieut.  Joseph  B.  Smith, 
has  fallen  at  his  post.  Her  decks  are  strewn  with  the  dead  and  the  dying, 
the  ship  is  on  fire  in  several  places,  and  not  a  gun  can  be  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  assailants.  In  this  state  of  things,  and  with  no  effectual  relief 
at  hand,  the  senior  surviving  officer,  Lieutenant  Pendergrast,  feels  it  his 
duty  to  save  further  useless  destruction  of  life  by  hauling  down  his  colors. 
This  is  done  about  four  o'clock,  p.  M.  The  Congress  continues  to  burn  until 
about  eight  in  the  evening,  then  she  blows  up.  When  word  comes  to  the 
Navy  Department  that  the  Congress  hauled  down  her  colors,  the  brave  old 
Commodore  Smith  immediately  says  in  deep  emotion  :  "  Then  Joe  is  dead." 
His  boy  went  down  with  this  ship. 

The  Virginia,  with  her  consorts,  the  Yorktown  and  Jamestown,  now 
turn  their  attention  to  the  Minnesota.  This  vessel  has  come  out  from  Old 
Point  to  assist  the  Cumberland  and  Congress,  but  she  also  runs  aground 
about  three  miles  below  Newport  News.  In  this  condition  she  cannot  bring 
all  her  guns  to  bear  ;  but  nevertheless,  she  is  regarded  as  a  more  formidable 
antagonist  than  the  Cumberland  or  Congress.  The  Virginia  is  of  too  deep  a 
draught  to  get  within  effective  range,  but  her  consorts  approach  and  fire 
with  damaging  effect.  Soon,  however,  the  frigate  gets  one  of  her  guns  to 
bear  on  them.  The  practice  is  telling.  They  haul  off  crippled  and  head  to 
wards  Norfolk,  with  the  Virginia,  at  nightfall.  All  efforts  to  get  the  Min 
nesota  afloat  during  the  night  and  into  a  safe  position  are  totally  unavailing. 
The  morning  is  looked  for  with  deep  anxiety,  as  it  will,  in  all  probability, 
bring  a  renewed  attack  from  the  formidable  assailants. 

At  nine  o'clock  the  same  night,  the  newly  finished  ironclad  Monitor  ar 
rives  at  Fortress  Monroe  from  New- York,  under  command  of  Lieut.  John  L. 
Worden.  Her  appearance  is  not  anticipated.  It  may  be  that  her  existence 
is  unknown  to  the  Confederates.  About  midnight  she  takes  position  by  the 
side  of  the  Minnesota.  As  anticipated,  next  morning,  at  six  o'clock,  the  Vir 
ginia,  with  her  consorts,  comes  out  from  Norfolk.  She  opens  fire  on  the 
Minnesota.  She  does  not  see  the  little  Monitor  lying  behind  the  frigate. 
Soon  the  Monitor  appears.  She  is  an  object  of  curiosity,  if  not  of  ridicule. 
She  lies  so  low,  and  is  so  small,  that  surely  she  will  not  attempt  to  cope  with 
the  Virginia.  The  commander  of  that  vessel,  which  would  have  been  more 
than  a  match  for  the  finest  ship  in  the  English  or  French  navy,  observes  what 
confronts  him.  It  is  an  insignificant  looking  little  nondescript.  It  resembles  a 
raft  with  a  cheese-box  on  it.  No  such  man-of-war  was  ever  before  seen.  It 
advances  to  meet  the  Virginia.  Was  there  ever  such  impudence !  A 
mingled  feeling  of  curiosity  and  contempt  runs  through  the  officers  of  that 
vessel.  The  very  waves  seems  to  laugh  at  the  odd  and  audacious  craft. 
But  it  is  soon  found  that  the  Virginia  has  a  foe  not  to  be  despised ;  one  en 
tirely  worthy  of  her  highest  prowess.  Promptly  obeying  the  signal  to  at- 


BATTLE  OF  THE  IRONCLADS.  171 

tack,  the  Monitor  runs  down  past  the  Minnesota,  to  lay  herself  close  along 
side  the  Virginia,  between  that  formidable  vessel  and  the  Minnesota.       It 
is  the  contest  of  David  and  Goliath  over  again.     The  Virginia  is  accom 
panied  by  the  Yorktown  and  Jamestown.     The  two  latter  are  crowded  with 
troops,  come  to  board  and  capture  the  Minnesota.     It  is  a  gala  day  in  Nor 
folk.     Everybody  is  in  high  glee  over  the  expected  victory  and  prizes.     Will 
the  expectation  be  fulfilled?     A  shot  from  the  Monitor  arrests  the  advance  of 
the  Yorktown,  but   the  Virginia  continues   to  approach.     She  is  within  a 
hundred  yards  of  the  daring  little  antagonist.     At  this  distance  the  engage 
ment  begins.     It  lasts  several  hours.     It  is  a  furious  cannonade.     It  is  hot 
and  close.     The  vessels  fight  within  from  fifty  to  two  hundred  yards  of  each 
other.      The  Monitor  carries   but   two   guns,  against   the  Virginia's  eight. 
The  revolving  turret  enables  the  Monitor  to  be  ready  for  the  "occasion  sud 
den."     It  is  blow  for  blow.     This  tends  to  equalize  the  conditions  of  the 
duel.     The  Virginia  finds  the  Monitor  impenetrable  to  shot  and  shell.     She 
therefore  attempts  to  run  her  down.     She  fails  in  this.     The  Monitor  avoids 
the  blows  of  her  enemy.     She  still  deals  point-blank  shots  at  short  range 
against  her  ponderous  antagonist.     At  length  the  Virginia  stabs  the  Monitor 
in  the  side.     She  thrusts  in  vain.     No  damage  results.     The  Monitor  spins 
round  like  a  top.     She  soon  obtains  her  bearing  again,  and  sends  one  of  her 
formidable  missiles  into  her  huge  opponent.     By  this  time  the  officers  of  the 
Monitor  have  acquired  complete  confidence  in   her  impregnability.     They 
no  longer  fire  at  random  or  hastily.     The  Monitor  works  round  the  Virginia, 
repeatedly  probing  her  sides.     She  seeks  for  weak  points,  and  reserves  her 
fire  with  coolness,  until  she  has  the  right  spot.     Now  she  steadies  for  a  tell 
ing  blow.     She  takes  the  exact  range.     Crash !   crash !  crash !  three  shots 
are  dealt  in  this  deliberate  way.     Ho  !  ho !  the  Virginia  will  take  no  prize 
to-day !     She  is  overmatched.     She  now  resorts  to  retreat.     She  is  swifter 
than  the  Monitor.     She  will  try  the  Minnesota  again.     She  turns  to  renew 
the  attack  on  that  vessel.     The  Monitor  will  not  permit  this.     She  comes  up 
and  takes  position  between  the  two  ships.     She   again  makes  the  Virginia 
feel  her  prowess.     Where  are  the  consorts  of  the  latter  ?     They  may  go  back 
with  their  boarders.     It  is  now  high  noon.     The  four  hours'  conflict  is  over. 
The  Virginia  is  seriously  damaged.     Like  a  wounded  giant,  she  moves  off 
for  Sewell's  Point,  at  full  speed.     The  Monitor  follows  for  some  distance, 
but  she  is  outstripped  in  the  race.     She  abandons  the  pursuit  and  returns  to 
the  Minnesota.       Viva  I  viva  !    little  Monitor  ! 

The  story  of  this  conflict  is  the  romance  of  the  war,  where  mechanism 
and  genius  gave  so  much  invincibility  to  the  Northern  cause.  The  Confed 
erates  were  under  the  impression  that  the  thrust  of  the  Virginia's  ram  had 
inflicted  serious  damage  upon  the  Monitor  ;  but  this  was  not  the  case.  She 
sustained  no  injury  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  one  Confederate  authority 
states  that  the  Virginia  lost  her  iron  beak  in  her  plunge  at  the  Monitor. 


172  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  Virginia  lost  her  ram  and  sprung  a  leak.  The  same  writer  boasts  that 
the  Monitor  ran  oft'  in  a  crippled  condition.  The  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs, 
of  which  the  writer  has  recently  been  chairman,  reported  upon  this  remark 
able  fight,  in  order  to  adjust  a  claim  for  prizes.  The  examination  resulted 
in  an  able  paper  from  Judge  Ballantine,  of  Tennessee,  which  sustains  one 
view ;  and  the  opposite  view  is  presented  in  the  paper  of  Mr.  John  R. 
Thomas,  of  Illinois,  which  asserts  that  the  Monitor  had  not  sensibly  dis 
abled  the  Virginia.  Both  reports  are  reconcilable  with  the  facts ;  for,  al 
though  the  Virginia  was  disabled  in  some  regards  and  required  some  repair, 
she  was  not  altogether  disabled.  There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  ability 
and  gallantry  with  which  the  two  armed  vessels  were  fought.  But  it  will 
always  remain  an  open  question  as  to  the  extent  of  damage  done  the  Vir 
ginia.  The  Monitor  came  out  unscathed. 

The  merit  of  having  invented  or  planned  the  armor  of  the  formidable 
Confederate  iron-clad  is  due  to  Lieut.  John  M.  Brooke,  of  the  Con 
federate  States  Navy.  The  meed  of  high  praise  need  not  be  withheld  from 
an  improvised  and  wonderful  achievement  in  naval  architecture  which  could 
have  destroyed  a  fleet  of  ordinary  wooden  vessels,  because  it  was  immediately 
surpassed,  as  a  factor  in  naval  warfare,  by  the  marvelous  invention  of  the 
Monitor.  Both  inventions  are  American.  America  may  well  be  proud  of 
them.  An  American  boy  named  Timby  invented  the  revolving  turret  twenty 
years  before.  This  was  in  1841,  when  he  was  only  nineteen  years  old.  He 
caught  the  idea  in  crossing  the  ferry  from  New- York  to  Jersey  City.  In 
passing  Castle  William,  it  occurred  to  him  that  a  similar  structure  of  iron, 
on  a  revolving  base,  could  bring  all  its  guns  to  bear  on  any  part  of  the 
channel.  He  filed  a  caveat  for  his  invention  in  the  Patent  Office  on  Jan. 
1 8,  1843.  The  same  year  he  exhibited  a  model  before  President  Tyler  and 
his  Cabinet.  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis  was  one  of  the  gentlemen  who  thought 
well  of  the  invention.  Mr.  Timby  went  to  France  with  his  model.  He 
exhibited  it  to  the  Emperor  Napoleon  III.  But  it  remained  for  the  genius 
of  Ericsson  to  apply  the  revolving  turret  in  actual  warfare.  How  well 
he  executed  the  design,  the  battle  just  described  tells; — that  battle  of  the 
Triton  and  the  minnow  in  Hampton  Roads,  in  1862,  in  which  the  minnow 
won.  It  would  seem,  from  this  miraculous  result,  that  the  great  northern 
cities  of  the  sea-board  escaped  bombardment  through  the  genius  of  Ericsson 
and  the  intrepidity  of  the  gallant  Worden  and  his  crew.  History  records  no 
event  so  providential  in  its  bearing  upon  the  destiny  of  this  hemisphere.  It 
demonstrated  the  worthlessness  of  wooden  navies.  The  governments  of 
Europe  began  at  once  to  devise  plans,  in  projectiles  and  armor,  and  to  re 
model  their  ships  of  war  upon  the  new  American  patterns. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  PROGRESS  OF  THE  WAR— 1862. 

CONQUESTS  ON  SOUTH  CAROLINA  AND  GEORGIA  COASTS  —  MISSOURI  RELIEVED  — 
GENERAL  SAMUEL  R.  CURTIS  AT  PEA  RIDGE  —  HIS  SPLENDID  SERVICES  AND 
VICTORIES  — BATTLES  IN  KENTUCKY  —  FALL  OF  FORTS  HENRY  AND  DONEL- 
SON— FLOYD  AS  A  GENERAL  AND  A  FAILURE  -  TENNESSEE  OPENED  — 
NASHVILLE  OCCUPIED  AND  ANDREW  JOHNSON  GOVERNOR  —  SHILOH  AND 
ITS  RESULTS  —  OPERATIONS  IN  TENNESSEE  —  HALLECK  SUBORDINATES 
GRANT  -  VIRGINIA  CAMPAIGN  —  McCLELLAN  IN  COMMAND  — HIS  DIFFICUL 
TIES  IN  FRONT  —  EMBARRASSMENT  AT  WASHINGTON  —  CHANGE  OF  BASE 
TO  THE  JAMES  RIVER  —  NORFOLK  OCCUPIED  —  THE  AUTHOR'S  PERSONAL 
OBSERVATIONS— HON.  JOHN  S.  MILLSON  AT  HOME  — THE  BIG  RAM  "VIR 
GINIA  "  BLOWN  UP  —  FITZ  JOHN  PORTER'S  MOVEMENTS  —  McCLELLAN, 
MCDOWELL,  POPE,  BANKS,  FREMONT,  SUMNER,  JOSEPH  E.  JOHNSTON,  LONG- 
STREET,  JACKSON,  EWELL,  THE  HILLS,  AND  OTHER  GIANTS  IN  THE 
FIELD  —  MANOEUVRES  AND  DISASTERS  —  GREAT  SLAUGHTER  —  MALVERN 
HILL  BATTLE— RICHMOND  NOT  TAKEN— McCLELLAN  REMOVED— SECOND  BULL 
RUN  —  MARCH  INTO  MARYLAND  —  WASHINGTON  THREATENED  —  McCLEL 
LAN  RECALLED  —  ANTIETAM  —  SURRENDER  OF  HARPER'S  FERRY -BATTLE 
OF  CHATTANOOGA  —  KIRBY  SMITH  IN  KENTUCKY  —  FRANKFORT  TAKEN 
AND  CINCINNATI  THREATENED  —  THE  SOJJIRREL  CAMPAIGN  AND  A  RACE 
FOR  CONGRESS  —  BRAGG  FORAGING  IN  KENTUCKY  —  VAN  DORN  AND  CORINTH 
—  ROSECRANS  AND  BRAGG  AT  STONE  RIVER  —  GENERAL  STUART'S  CAVALRY 
INVADE  PENNSYLVANIA  —  GREAT  BATTLE  AT  FREDERICKSBURG- BURN- 
SIDE  DEFEATED  —  FARRAGUT  AND  BUTLER  ON  THE  LOWER  MISSISSIPPI  — 
NEW  ORLEANS  CAPTURED. 

DURING  the  year  1862,  the  conquests  on  the  coasts  of  South  Caro 
lina  and  Georgia  were  considerably  advanced.     The  most  impor 
tant  of  these,  however,  was  the  recapture  of  Fort  Pulaski.    It  was 
one  of  the  two    principal  fortifications  which  defended  the  ap 
proaches  to  Savannah  from  the  sea,  by  the  river.     This  achievement  reflected 
great  honor  upon  the  enterprise  and  courage  of  the  military  and  naval  forces. 
Fort  Pulaski   is  on    a  small   island  at  the  mouth  of  the   Savannah  River. 
Outside  is  Tybee  Island.     On  this  island,  Gen.  Quincy  A.  Gillmore,  com 
manding  the  Union  forces,  erected  works  with  siege  guns  bearing  on  the 
fort.    Capt.  John  Rogers,  who  was  in  command  of  the  gunboats,  contributed 


174  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

largely  to  the  success  of  the  operations.  The  bombardment  of  Pulaski  took 
place  on  the  loth  of  April.  It  lasted  eighteen  hours,  when  the  com 
mander,  Col.  Charles  H.  Olmstead,  of  the  First  Georgia  volunteers,  sur 
rendered.  The  capture  of  that  fort  put  a  stop  to  blockade-running  at 
Savannah. 

An  expedition  was  fitted  out  against  the  coast  of  Florida.  The  result 
was  the  capture  of  Fernandina,  Jacksonville,  St.  Augustine,  and  St.  Mary's 
on  the  east  coast,  and  Cedar  Keys  on  the  west.  The  command  of  the  whole 
eastern  coast  of  the  state  was  secured.  Darien  and  Brunswick,  in  Georgia, 
were  also  taken  possession  of  without  resistance. 

The  spring  of  1862  was  signalized  by  several  important  Union  victories 
in  the  Western  States.  In  Missouri,  General  Curtis  and  Gen.  Jefferson  C. 
Davis  drove  back  the  Confederate  forces  under  General  Price,  and  took 
possession  of  Springfield.  These  operations  took  place  on  the  i2th  and  I3th 
of  February,  and  on  the  i8th  General  Price  retreated  across  the  Arkansas  line. 
He  was  closely  pursued  by  General  Curtis,  a  skillful  West  Point  soldier  of 
rare  endowments.  On  the  I9th,  Price  formed  a  junction  with  the  forces 
under  Gen.  Ben.  McCulloch.  With  this  re-enforcement  he  turned  about  to 
face  the  enemy  at  Sugar  Creek,  but  soon  gave  way.  On  the  26th,  Price  and 
McCulloch  were  driven  from  a  strong  position  at  Cross  Hollows.  There 
they  left  their  sick  and  wounded,  after  burning  their  barracks.  Fayetteville, 
in  Arkansas,  was  taken,  with  a  large  number  of  prisoners  and  military 
stores.  Again  the  Confederates  turned  upon  their  pursuers,  but  they  met 
with  a  great  defeat  at  Pea  Ridge,  in  northwestern  Arkansas.  They  were 
commanded  by  General  Van  Dorn,  aided  by  Generals  Price,  McCulloch, 
and  Mclntosh.  The  Confederates  concede  that  the  force  under  Van  Dorn 
amounted  to  20,000  men,  while  they  hold  that  the  Union  force  under 
General  Curtis  was  25,000.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Unionists  claim  that 
Curtis  commanded  only  10,500  men,  and  that  the  force  of  the  enemy  was 
twice  as  great.  The  battle  was  fought  on  the  7th  and  8th  of  March.  It 
was  one  of  the  first  signs  of  the  value  of  a  trained  military  commander 
and  engineer.  It  resulted  in  the  rout  of  the  Confederates.  They  lost 
1,000  in  prisoners,  and  many  killed  and  wounded.  The  Union  loss  was 
212  killed,  926  wounded,  and  124  missing.  The  Confederates  retreated 
behind  the  Boston  Mountain,  and  were  not  pursued.  The  effect  of  this 
victory  seems  to  have  been  to  push  the  seat  of  war  west  of  the  Mississippi, 
and  from  the  soil  of  Missouri  to  that  of  Arkansas.  The  general  officers 
under  Curtis  were  Sigel,  Jefferson  C.  Davis,  and  Asboth.  Colonel  Osterhaus 
was  in  command  of  a  division  and  rendered  important  service. 

The  Union  forces  under  Gen.  George  H.  Thomas  gained  a  signal  victory 
on  the  1 9th  of  January,  over  fche  Confederates  under  Gen.  George  B.  Crit- 
tenden,  at  Webb's  Cross  Roads,  near  Mill  Springs,  in  southeastern  Ken 
tucky.  Among  the  Confederate  killed  was  General  Zollikoffer.  He  was 


GENERAL  GRANT'S  FIRST  GREAT  EXPLOIT.  175 

second  in  command.  He  had  been  a  member  of  the  Thirty-fifth  Congress. 
The  forces  which  achieved  this  victory  were  sent  out  by  General  Buell,  com 
manding  the  Ohio  Department.  They  consisted  of  the  Ninth  Ohio,  Colonel 
McCook  ;  the  Second  Minnesota,  Colonel  Van  Cleve  ;  the  Fourth  Kentucky, 
Colonel  Fry ;  the  Tenth  Indiana,  Colonel  Munson  ;  the  Fourteenth  Ohio, 
Colonel  Steadman  ;  and  the  Tenth  Kentucky,  Colonel  Haskin  ;  with  two 
batteries  under  Captains  Stanhart  and  Wetmore. 

Fort  Henry,  on  the  Tennessee  River,  near  its  mouth,  was  captured  by 
Commodore  A.  H.  Foote,  on  the  6th  of  February.  The  garrison  consisted 
of  four  or  five  thousand  men.  They  abandoned  the  fort  soon  after  the  fire 
from  the  gunboats  commenced,  and  before  the  strong  land  force  under  Gen 
eral  Grant  could  get  up  to  it  through  the  mud  and  high  water  which  impeded 
its  progress.  They  thus  escaped, — except  eighty-three  men,  including  Gen 
eral  Tilghman, — but  left  behind  a  large  amount  of  cannon,  small  arms,  and 
stores.  Only  two  Unionists  were  killed  and  nine  wounded ;  while  the 
Confederates  lost  but  five  killed  and  ten  wounded.  Commodore  Foote  and 
his  men  received  the  thanks  of  Congress  for  this  exploit,  which  opened  the 
Tennessee  River  to  the  forces  of  the  Union.  A  fleet  of  gunboats,  under 
Commander  Phelps,  immediately  advanced  up  the  river  as  far  as  the  Muscle 
Shoals,  in  north  Alabama.  They  destroyed  the  railroad  bridges,  and  cap 
tured  or  destroyed  several  steamers  and  other  Confederate  property. 

The  capture  of  Fort  Donelson  by  the  Union  forces  under  General  Grant 
took  place  on  the  i6th  of  February.  It  required  hard  fighting.  It  involved 
the  loss  of  1,200  men  in  killed  and  wounded  on  each  side.  Gen.  John  B. 
Floyd,  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  Confederates,  together  with  General 
Pillow,  his  second  in  command,  departed,  on  the  night  of  the  i5th,  taking 
with  him  some  two  or  three  thousand  men.  He  turned  over  the  command  of 
the  fort,  with  the  bulk  of  his  army,  to  Gen.  S.  B.  Buckner ;  and  from  Mur- 
freesborough,  200  miles  away,  he  describes  this  desertion  of  his  command,  in 
his  official  report,  as  a  heroic  exploit.  He  states,  that  it  was  unanimously 
agreed  in  a  council  of  war  that  to  renew  the  conflict,  after  the  slaughter  of  the 
day,  would  be  vain.  He  thought,  and  announced,  that  a  desperate  onset  upon 
the  enemy's  right,  where  the  morning  attack  had  been  made,  might  result 
in  the  extrication  of  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  command  ;  but  it  was 
likewise  agreed  that  it  would  result  in  the  destruction  of  all  who  did  not 
succeed  in  effecting  their  escape.  It  is  not  for  the  writer  of  these  annals  to 
make  comparisons  as  to  generals  or  battles.  He  proposes  only  to  state  re 
sults,  not  to  criticise  or  impugn  the  conduct  of  battles.  But  the  writer  has 
yet  to  see  any  defense  of  General  Floyd's  action  on  this  occasion.  The  fall 
of  Fort  Donelson  was  one  of  the  notable  causes  which  helped  to  discourage 
the  Confederacy.  General  Floyd's  conduct  on  this  occasion,  has  always 
seemed  strange.  While  not  unwilling  to  sacrifice  the  army  under  his  com 
mand,  and  having,  as  he  said,  uthe  right  individually  to  determine"  that  he 


176  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

"would  not  survive  a  surrender,"  why  should  he  turn  the  command  over  to 
Buckner,  and  retreat  in  the  night?  Mr.  Davis,  in  his  message,  dated  March 
nth,  to  the  Confederate  Congress,  showed  great  dissatisfaction  with  the  con 
duct  of  Floyd.  He  could  not  understand,  with  the  incomplete  returns  at  hand, 
"upon  what  authority  or  principles  of  action  the  senior  general  abandoned  re 
sponsibility,  by  transferring  the  command  to  a  junior  officer."  General  Buck 
ner  surrendered  about  ten  thousand  men,  with  large  military  stores  of  heavy 
guns,  small  arms,  ammunition,  and  provisions.  This  capital  achievement  of 
General  Grant  led  to  others.  Bowling  Green,  in  Kentucky,  was  abandoned. 
It  was  taken  by  General  Buell.  Nothing  now  intervened  to  prevent  the  gun 
boats  from  going  up  the  Cumberland  to  Nashville,  the  capital  of  Tennessee, 
situated  in  the  heart  of  that  populous  and  wealthy  state.  The  legislature  and 
governor,  anticipating  the  speedy  fall  of  the  city,  retired  to  Memphis,  taking 
with  them  the  state  archives  and  the  public  money. 

In  March,  the  Union  forces,  by  land  and  water,  under  the  command  of 
General  Pope  at  the  head  of  40,000  men,  inflicted  irreparable  damage  upon 
the  Confederate  cause  by  the  capture  of  New  Madrid  and  Island  No.  10,  on 
the  Mississippi,  about  fifty  miles  below  Cairo.  These  places  were  thoroughly 
fortified  and  defended  by  several  thousand  men.  By  their  capture,  5,000 
prisoners,  with  more  than  a  hundred  pieces  of  heavy  ordnance,  thousands 
of  small  arms,  and  a  vast  quantity  of  ammunition  and  commissary  stores, 
fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Union  forces.  Clarksville,  a  considerable  town  on 
the  Cumberland,  half  way  between  its  mouth  and  Nashville,  was  taken  by 
the  gunboats  under  Commodore  Foote.  It  was  taken  without  resistance,  and 
garrisoned  by  troops  sent  up  by  General  Grant,  under  the  command  of 
Brigadier-General  Smith.  From  this  point  General  Smith,  under  the  convoy 
of  a  gunboat  and  transports,  proceeded  up  the  river  to  Nashville.  No  op 
position  was  made  to  his  landing.  On  the  same  day,  the  advance  of  General 
Buell's  force,  from  Bowling  Green,  Kentucky,  arrived.  The  stars  and  stripes 
had  been  raised  on  the  capitol  on  the  24th  of  February,  and  Andrew  John 
son  was  a  few  days  afterwards  appointed  military  governor  by  President 
Lincoln,  with  the  rank  of  brigadier-general.  Nashville  is  situated  in  a  section 
of  country  of  unsurpassed  fertility.  It  had  been  made  by  the  Confederates 
a  principal  depot  for  their  arms  and  stores.  These  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
government  forces.  They  supplied  General  Buell's  army  with  an  abundance 
of  necessaries,  after  the  toilsome  march  from  Kentucky.  The  wedge  had 
been  deftly  inserted.  Its  effect  was  to  open  the  way  to  Memphis,  and  to 
the  whole  lower  Mississippi.  Upon  the  4th  of  June,  Forts  Randolph  and 
Pillow  were  evacuated  by  the  Confederates,  after  a  desperate  struggle  on  the 
river  between  the  gunboats  of  the  opposing  forces.  In  this  engagement  a 
Confederate  ram  well-nigh  destroyed  the  principal  boat  of  the  government, — 
the  Cincinnati ;  but  finally  the  rams  and  other  boats  of  the  enemy  were 
silenced  or  destroyed. 


THE  BATTLE  AT  PITTSBURG  LANDING.  177 

Pittsburg  Landing,  or  Shiloh,  is  situated  a  few  miles  above  the  old  town 
of  Savannah,  on  the  Tennessee  River.  A  pivotal  battle  was  fought  here  on 
the  6th  and  7th  of  April.  It  resulted  in  a  decisive  victory  for  the  Union  forces 
under  Generals  Grant  and  Buell.  There  was  a  heavy  loss  of  life  on  both 
sides.  At  the  close  of  the  first  day  the  Confederates,  who  were  certainly  in 
stronger  force,  had  driven  the  Unionists  from  nearly  every  foot  of  ground 
occupied  by  them  in  the  morning.  They  captured  all  their  heavy  artillery, 
camp  equipage,  and  2,000  prisoners,  including  the  commander  of  a  division, 
General  Prentiss.  General  Grant,  however,  rallied  his  forces,  who  were 
being  driven  back  to  the  river,  and  held  his  ground  until  the  timely  arrival  of 
two  gunboats  from  below,  and  of  General  Buell  with  a  re-enforcement  of 
20,000  men.  The  gunboats,  by  shelling  the  enemy,  and  promptly  landing 
a  portion  of  Buell's  force,  stop  the  advance  of  the  foe.  This  revives  the 
spirits  of  the  Unionists,  just  as  night  is  coming  on.  Early  the  next  morning 
General  Grant,  with  the  aid  of  Buell's  corps,  and  of  the  division  commanded 
by  General  Lew.  Wallace,  which  arrived  during  the  night,  is  enabled  to 
take  the  offensive.  A  simultaneous  advance  upon  the  enemy  is  made  along 
the  whole  line.  The  Confederates  make  desperate  efforts  to  hold  their 
ground  ;  but  the  odds  are  now  against  them.  They  are  beaten  back.  Five 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon  finds  them  retreating  south,  in  the  direction  of 
Corinth.  No  pursuit  is  made  by  the  exhausted  Union  forces.  Most  of  the 
guns,  flags,  and  camp  equipage  captured  by  the  Confederates  the  first  day, 
are  abandoned  in  their  retreat.  These  spoils  fall  again  into  the  hands  of 
the  Unionists.  But  the  Union  prisoners,  3,956  in  number,  are  sent  off.  The 
Union  loss  was  1,735  killed,  7,882  wounded,  and,  as  above  stated,  3,956 
prisoners;  total,  13,573.  The  Confederate  loss  was  1,728  killed,  8,012 
wounded,  and  959  missing;  total,  10,699.  The  Confederates  lost  in  this 
battle,  their  commander-in-chief,  Albert  Sidney  Johnston.  He  was  regarded 
by  Jefferson  Davis  and  others  as  their  ablest  general. 

On  the  8th  of  June,  Mr.  Davis  announces  to  the  Confederate  Congress, 
"  that  it  has  pleased  Almighty  God  to  crown  the  Confederate  Arms  with  a 
glorious  and  decisive  victory  over  our  invaders.'*  In  the  same  message  he 
deplores  the  loss  of  General  Johnston  as  irreparable.  Mr.  Lincoln,  on  the 
loth,  with  better  reason,  issues  a  congratulatory  proclamation,  saying:  "  It 
has  pleased  Almighty  God  to  vouchsafe  signal  victories  to  the  land  and  naval 

forces  engaged  in  suppressing  an  internal  rebellion."     Are  there  two  Gods, 

a  God  of  the  hills  and  a  God  of  the  valley?  On  the  8th  of  June,  Gen.  Wil 
liam  T.  Sherman  followed  the  retreating  foe.  He  took  the  Corinth  road.  It 
was  badly  cut  up,  in  consequence  of  heavy  rain.  He  found  the  way  strewn 
with  abandoned  wagons,  ambulances,  and  camp  equipage,  and  gave  aid  to 
a  crowded  Confederate  hospital. 

Major-General  Halleck,  whose  headquarters  had  been  at  St.  Louis,  now 
came  to  Pittsburg  Landing.  He  assumed  the  command  of  the  army.  He 


178  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

brought  with  him,  or  gave  orders  to  follow  him,  re-enforcements  under  the 
command  of  General  Pope,  amounting  to  25,000  men.  He  immediately 
prepared  for  an  advance  upon  the  enemy  at  Corinth.  This  was  a  fortified 
place  situated  at  the  junction  of  the  Memphis  and  Charleston  Railroad  with 
the  Mobile  and  Ohio,  some  miles  south  of  the  scene  of  the  recent  battle. 
General  Beauregard,  who  was  second  in  command  to  General  Johnston,  took 
the  place  of  that  officer.  On  the  2d  of  May,  he  issued  a  stirring  bulletin  to 
his  troops,  in  which  he  claimed  the  victory  on  the  field  of  Shiloh. 

The  arrival  of  Halleck  subordinates  Grant.  Serious  complaints  are  made 
against  the  former.  According  to  General  Sherman,  General  Grant  thinks 
of  asking  to  be  relieved  from  duty  in  that  quarter.  He,  however,  yields  to 
the  appeals  of  Sherman,  and  remains  as  second  in  command.  The  entire 
force  under  General  Halleck  is  said  to  be  108,000.  The  Confederates 
are  also  re-enforced.  They  have  gathered  an  army  of  80,000  men,  in  and 
around  their  fortifications  at  Corinth.  This  place,  naturally  strong  and 
strongly  fortified,  is  provided  with  every  appliance  of  war.  But  it  is  doomed 
to  destruction  by  the  hands  that  made  it.  About  the  last  of  May  the  Con 
federates  blow  up  and  destroy  millions'  worth  of  military  stores,  which  can 
not  be  carried  off  in  their  retreat.  In  a  dispatch  from  General  Halleck  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  dated  May  30,  it  is  stated  that  the  enemy's  position  and 
works  in  front  of  Corinth  were  unexpectedly  strong.  It  is  the  opinion  of 
Halleck  that  the  enemy  cannot  occupy  a  stronger  position  in  his  flight.  An 
immense  amount  of  public  and  private  property,  stores,  provisions,  wagons, 
tents,  and  other  material  have  been  destroyed  by  the  enemy.  For  miles  out 
of  the  town  the  roads  are  filled  with  arms,  haversacks,  and  equipments  of 
all  sorts,  thrown  away  by  the  flying  troops.  The  deserters  and  prisoners 
taken  amount  to  nearly  two  thousand.  The  victorious  Union  troops  march 
into  the  town  on  the  3oth  of  May.  The  enemy  is  pursued  by  the  cavalry, 
under  General  Pope,  for  about  twenty-five  miles,  but  without  results. 

The  results  of  General  Halleck's  campaign  were  less  fruitful  than  might 
have  been  expected.  True,  the  Confederates  were  driven  out  of  west  Ten 
nessee.  They  were  forced  to  sacrifice  large  quantities  of  military  stores  with 
great  loss  of  prestige.  But  beyond  these  advantages  to  the  Union  cause, 
none  were  tangible.  The  Confederates,  under  Bragg,  turned  back  toward 
the  north  instead  of  the  south.  They  threatened  Louisville.  This  move 
ment  caused  a  dispersion  of  the  great  army  under  Halleck.  Buell  was  sent 
in  pursuit  of  Bragg,  Grant  remained  in  west  Tennessee,  and  Halleck  was 
recalled  to  Washington  to  take  the  chief  command  of  the  army. 

During  these  operations  in  west  Tennessee  and  north  Mississippi,  Gen. 
O.  M.  Mitchell,  the  astronomer,  was  in  command  of  a  division  of  General 
BuelPs  army.  He  marched  from  Nashville,  by  way  of  Shelbyville  and  Fay- 
etteville,  to  Huntsville,  Alabama.  The  last  named  place  he  captured  without 
bloodshed.  He  first  struck  the  Mississippi  and  Charleston  Railroad  four 


GENERAL  McCLELLAN'S  ARMY  OF  THE  POTOMAC.  179 

miles  from  the  town.  There  he  stopped,  and  took  possession  of  a  railway 
train,  with  159  prisoners.  At  Huntsville  he  quietly  took  possession  of  a  large 
amount  of  rolling  stock,  including  seventeen  engines  and  a  great  number 
of  passenger  and  freight  cars.  This  enabled  him  to  take  possession  of  about 
one  hundred  miles  of  the  railroad,  and  thus  to  cut  off  Confederate  com 
munications  between  the  east  and  the  west. 

At  the  opening  of  the  year  1862,  the  army  immediately  under  the  com 
mand  of  Gen.  George  B.  McClellan  was  in  Virginia,  around  Washington. 
It  numbered  about  two  hundred  thousand.  That  of  the  Confederate  general, 
Joseph  E.  Johnston,  was  something  like  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  thou 
sand  strong.  It  confronted  the  Union  army  from  Acquia  Creek  to  Win 
chester.  The  campaign  opened  by  movements  on  the  part  of  the  Union 
forces  against  the  left  wing  of  the  Confederates.  The  latter  retired,  without 
making  serious  opposition.  They  desired  a  concentration  of  their  forces  at 
Gordonville.  They  hoped  to  draw  the  Unionists  away  from  their  base  of 
supplies.  Even  Centreville  and  Manassas  were  abandoned.  Long  before 
the  Confederates  had  fallen  back  there  had  been  a  clamor  for  a  movement 
of  McClellan's  army.  The  President  had  issued  a  general  order  to  that 
effect,  early  in  February.  It  was  premature.  On  the  nth  of  March,  1862, 
the  President  issued  another  order  announcing  that  General  McClellun 
having  personally  taken  trie  field  in  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac, 
would  be  relieved  from  the  command  of  the  other  armies  of  the  Union  ; 
and  that  the  generals  in  command  of  the  latter  would  in  future  report 
directly  to  the  Secretary  of  War.  This  order  was  regarded  as  a  great  in 
justice  by  General  McClellan  and  his  friends.  Whether  so  intended  or  not, 
it  weakened  him  for  the  expected  conflict.  It  was  the  beginning  of  the  in 
dignities  which  were  consummated  in  his  final  removal  from  command. 

The  objective  point  of  General  McClellan  was  Richmond.  It  had  been 
his  intention  to  flank  the  Confederates  at  Manassas  by  a  movement  on  Ur- 
bana.  The  retirement  of  the  latter  to  Gordonville  induced  him  to  make 
his  advance  from  a  base  on  the  James  or  York  rivers.  He  thought  that  by 
taking  his  army  to  that  base  by  water,  he  would  reach  it  sooner,  and  with  less 
loss,  than  by  fighting  his  way  on  the  line  Grant  afterward  took  with  such 
terrible  loss  of  men.  Like  McClellan's,  Grant's  movement  was  for  a  base  on 
the  James  River,  in  case  of  being  unable  to  carry  Richmond  by  assault.  Had 
McClellan  followed  the  Confederates  as  Grant  did,  his  campaign  would  have 
been  like  that  of  the  latter,  with  probably  the  like  result,  —  a  base  at  City 
Point  on  the  James  River.  Before  McClellan  embarked  for  the  peninsula 
it  had  been  decided  in  a  consultation  of  corps  commanders,  that  45,000 
men  would  be  necessary  for  the  defense  of  Washington.  He  afterwards 
stated  that  he  had  left  behind  70,000.  This  included  the  forces  in  the  Shenan- 
doah  valley.  With  85,000  men  he  arrived  at  Fortress  Monroe.  It  is  the 
objective  point  of  vantage.  It  is  situated  on  a  point  of  land  between  the 


l8o  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

York  and  James  rivers.  The  peninsula  formed  by  the  junction  of  these 
streams  with  the  waters  of  Chesapeake  Bay  is  about  fifteen  miles  in  width. 
It  is  cut  up  by  tributary  streams  which  empty  into  the  bay  or  these  rivers. 
Fortress  Monroe,  at  Old  Point,  is  on  the  extreme  end  of  the  peninsula,  and 
is  separated  from  Hampton  by  a  creek.  Yorktown  is  a  few  miles  from  the 
mouth  of  the  York  River,  on  its  southern  side,  and  within  the  peninsula. 
Yorktown  was  strongly  fortified.  It  was  defended  by  fifty-six  heavy  guns, 
which  rendered  it  impracticable  for  the  Union  gunboats  to  ascend  the  river. 
The  country  is  flat,  and  in  the  spring  the  roads  are  impassable.  It  was 
necessary  to  corduroy  them,  before  moving  the  siege  ordnance  over  them. 

A  movement  up  the  James  was  not  considered  practicable.  Transports 
would  have  to  run  the  chances  of  destruction  by  the  Confederate  iron-clad 
ram,  the  Virginia.  This  famous  vessel  had  been  repaired  and  strengthened 
since  her  encounter  with  the  Monitor.  It  was  doubtful  whether  the  latter 
was  a  match  for  her,  and  no  other  vessel  of  the  Union  navy  would  dare  to 
encounter  her.  Indeed,  while  part  of  McClellan's  army  was  at  Fortress 
Monroe,  this  famous  Confederate  ram  came  out  and  cleared  Hampton  Roads 
of  all  Federal  shipping,  thus  showing  the  impracticability  of  a  Union  advance 
on  Richmond  by  the  James  River. 

Under  these  circumstances,  General  McClellan  formed  the  plan  of  land 
ing  McDowell's  corps  on  the  north  bank  of  the  York,  and  passing  around 
the  fortifications  at  Gloucester  Point,  opposite  that  town.  Thus  he  would 
turn  the  enemy's  left,  and  hem  him  in  between  the  two  rivers.  His  plans 
are  ready  for  execution,  when  he  is  astounded  by  the  information  that 
McDowell's  corps  has  been  withdrawn  from  his  command.  On  his  earnest 
appeal,  a  division  of  that  corps,  consisting  of  11,000  men,  is  sent  forward ; 
but  this  force  is  not  deemed  sufficiently  strong  to  carry  out  the  plan. 

The  history  of  the  fitting  out  of  this  peninsular  campaign  shows  that  the 
President  and  Cabinet  entertained  fears  for  the  safety  of  the  capital.  It 
had  been  intimated  to  the  former  that  McClellan's  movement  would  greatly 
endanger  the  capital.  President  Lincoln  was  privately  urged  to  remove 
McClellan.  Having  no  reason  to  doubt  the  ability  of  the  general  whom  he 
appointed,  the  President  declined  to  remove  him.  He  had  hitherto  resisted 
the  cabal  which  the  author  anathematized  in  his  Bull  Run  speech.  He  long 
sustained,  against  the  clamors  of  the  press  and  Republican  politicians,  his 
faith  in  General  McClellan.  But  it  was  believed  by  many  that  the  Secre 
tary  of  War,  from  whatever  cause,  not  only  failed  to  give  a  frank  and 
cordial  support  to  that  general,  but  sought  to  have  him  removed.  A  simi 
lar  jealousy  of  General  Grant  and  General  Sherman  sprang  up  afterwards 
in  the  mind  of  the  same  secretary. 

The  next  movement  of  General  McClellan  was  to  lay  siege  to  Yorktown. 
Great  preparations  were  made  for  this  purpose.  The  heaviest  siege  guns 
were  trained  to  bear  upon  its  fortifications.  But  just  when  the  guns  were 


THE  BATTLE  AT  WILLIAMSBURG.  l8l 

ready  to  be  brought  into  play,  the  Confederates,  foreseeing  the  result,  evacu 
ated  their  works,  not  only  at  Yorktown,  but  entirely  across  the  peninsula. 
A  month  had  thus  been  consumed.  This  place,  with  the  aid  of  McDowell's 
corps,  might  have  been  taken  almost  immediately.  In  the  meantime  the 
Confederates  strengthened  the  fortifications  of  Richmond.  They  brought  up 
re-enforcements  from  the  south  and  west.  The  Union  loss  in  the  siege  op 
erations  was  300  men.  The  Confederate  loss  was  probably  as  great,  together 
with  seventy- three  cannon,  some  of  large  size. 

Williamsburg,  the  old  capital  of  Virginia,  is  situated  in  the  midst  of  the 
peninsula.  It  is  about  ten  miles  southwest  of  Yorktown.  It  is  a  small  town, 
but  has  historic  interest  as  the  seat  of  the  old  colonial  government,  and  of 
William  and  Mary  College.  Here  the  House  of  Burgesses  used  to  meet. 
Here  Patrick  Henry,  "  the  forest-born  Demosthenes/'  electrified  the  conti 
nent,  in  1765,  with  his  superlative  eloquence.  The  Confederates  made  a  stand 
at  this  historic  spot.  There  was  hard  fighting  here  on  the  5th  of  May.  The 
Union  side  probably  lost  more  men  than  the  Confederates,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  the  latter  fought  behind  earth-works,  and  the  Unionists  in  the  open 
field.  The  battle  of  Williamsburg  was  one  of  the  most  hotly  contested  en 
gagements  of  the  war.  The  Confederates  were  well  supported  by  artillery, 
while  the  Union  troops  fought  solely  with  muskets.  The  Confederates  had 
slashed  the  timber  for  a  mile  in  front  of  their  works.  Over  this  the  Union 
troops  had  to  advance  under  a  galling  fire  of  musketry  and  cannon.  It 
rained  the  night  before,  and  all  day  during  the  battle.  The  roads  were  so 
badly  cut  up  that  they  were  impassable  for  even  twelve-pound  field  pieces. 
Only  one  light  battery  could  be  brought  up  where  the  fight  was  hottest.  The 
divisions  of  Heintzelman's  corps,  under  Generals  Hooker  and  Kearney,  bore 
the  brunt  of  the  battle.  But  some  other  Union  brigades  participated, — 
among  them  that  of  General  Hancock.  Heintzelman's  corps  suffered  se 
verely  in  killed  and  wounded.  Here  the  famous  New-York  Excelsior  Bri 
gade,  and  the  Second  New  Jersey  Brigade,  won  their  first  warlike  glory. 
The  main  body  of  McClellan's  army  was  not  engaged  in  this  battle.  During 
the  night  and  following  day,  the  Confederates  evacuated  their  works  around 
Williamsburg,  and  then  leisurely  retired  towards  Richmond,  leaving  many 
dead  in  the  entrenchments,  and  wounded  in  the  houses  and  hospitals  of 
that  town. 

Immediately  following  these  events,  the  Confederates  evacuated  Norfolk. 
This  took  place  on  the  loth  of  May.  The  city  was  quietly  occupied  by  the 
Union  forces  under  Gen.  John  E.  Wool,  who  had  organized  a  force  for  its 
capture.  The  writer,  in  company  with  a  score  of  members  of  Congress, 
visited  Norfolk  a  few  days  after  its  occupation  by  the  Unionists.  There  was 
a  moodiness  about  its  inhabitants  as  if  they  felt  their  doom  impending. 
After  a  quarter  ot  a  century,  —  the  chill  of  that  visit  remains.  The  writer 
then  visited  Mr.  John  S.  Millson,  by  whose  side  he  had  the  honor  to  sit  in 


182  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  Thirty-fifth  and  Thirty-sixth  Congresses.  Mr.  Millson  was  a  man  of 
good  conscience,  and  of  metaphysical  refinement  in  argument.  He  fore 
saw  the  disasters  to  the  South  in  consequence  of  her  precipitate  action. 
The  writer  found  him  in  a  rear  room  of  his  home.  He  was  broken  in 
spirit  and  reserved  in  manner.  He  was  another  man.  He  had  been  a 
self-confined  prisoner,  seldom  going  out  of  his  house  among  the  people  by 
whom  he  was  once  so  beloved,  but  who  no  longer  cherished  his  wisdom  or 
trusted  his  counsel.  It  was  the  writer's  first  observation  of  a  conquered 
city.  It  was  worse  than  a  battle-field.  The  leaden  impression  was  doubled 
by  the  gloom  upon  the  faces  of  some  hundreds  of  slaves,  who  were  huddled 
in  a  camp  and  famishing  for  rations.  This  was  one  of  the  fatalities  of 
domestic  conflict. 

Before  Norfolk  was  evacuated  the  Confederate  iron-clad  ram  Virginia 
was  abandoned  and  blown  up  by  its  commander ;  and  at  the  same  time,  the 
strongly  fortified  works  on  Craney  Island  were  abandoned.  The  Union 
forces  were  thus  left  in  complete  control  of  the  James  River,  and  other  Vir 
ginia  waters.  In  Norfolk,  Craney  Island,  and  other  fortifications  upon  the 
James  River,  the  Confederates  left  one  hundred  and  twenty-six  cannon,  in 
excellent  order. 

While  Heintzelman  was  engaging  the  enemy  at  Williamsburg,  McClellan 
sent  General  Franklin's  division,  on  transports  convoyed  by  gunboats,  up 
the  York  River  to  West  Point,  where  that  broad,  deep  stream  is  formed 
by  the  junction  of  the  Mattapony  and  the  Pamunky.  The  force  of  ten  or 
eleven  thousand  men  was  landed  on  the  south  side,  at  a  place  called  Brick 
House  Point,  which  lies  immediately  opposite  West  Point,  the  latter  town 
being  in  the  fork  of  the  two  rivers.  A  battle  was  here  fought  on  the  7th  of 
May,  in  which  Franklin  was  the  victor.  This  success  made  the  lower  part  of 
the  peninsula  untenable  for  the  Confederates ;  therefore  they  concentrated 
their  forces  in  Richmond,  while  McClellan  cautiously  advanced  upon  it. 

The  Union  gunboats,  including  the  Monitor,  at  once  proceeded  to  break 
the  blockade  of  the  James  River.  This  was  soon  accomplished  up  to 
Drury's  Bluff,  within  eight  miles  of  Richmond.  At  that  point  the  gunboats 
were  repulsed  by  the  fire  from  the  Confederate  batteries,  situated  upon  a  high 
bluff,  far  above  the  level  of  the  river. 

The  army  under  General  McClellan  continued  to  advance  steadily  in  the 
direction  of  Richmond.  By  the  i5th  of  May  a  portion  of  it  had  reached  the 
"  White  House,"  situated  on  the  Pamunky  River,  about  twenty  miles  from 
the  city.  At  this  place  the  railroad  from  West  Point  to  Richmond  crosses 
the  Pamunky.  But  the  "White  House"  acquired  historic  renown  more 
than  a  century  before  it  became  identified  with  the  great  events  of  1862.  It 
had  been  the  home  of  Mrs.  Martha  Custis,  who  became  the  wife  of  General 
Washington.  The  property  is  said  to  be  still  in  the  family.  It  was  here  that 
the  future  Father  of  his  Country,  when  a  gallant  young  officer  in  the  service  of 


POLITICAL  INTERFERENCE  WITH  McCLELLAN.  183 

the  colony,  made  love  to  the  charming  young  widow.  She  was  the  possessor 
of  a  large  estate  and  of  priceless  virtues.  It  is  said  that  the  President's 
mansion  in  Washington  took  the  name  "White  House,"  from  her  old  Vir 
ginia  home  on  the  banks  of  the  Pamunky. 

The  Confederates  retreat  across  the  Chickahominy.  That  stream  lies 
north  of  Richmond,  and  flows  into  the  James  River,  a  few  miles  above  Wil-' 
liamsburg.  General  McClellan  following,  the  retreating  enemy  crosses  the 
Chickahominy  at  Bottom  Bridge  and  the  railroad  bridge.  The  first  of 
these  crossings  is  fifteen  miles  from  Richmond,  and  the  second  about  ten.  He 
continues  to  advance,  until  within  seven  miles  of  the  city.  Skirmishing  now 
begins  along  the  lines.  Heavy  rains  are  rendering  the  roads,  in  that  low, 
marshy  country,  almost  impassable  for  wagons  and  gun-carriages.  Pending 
these  movements,  General  McClellan  receives  an  order  from  the  War  De 
partment,  dated  May  lyth.  It  informs  him  that  General  McDowell  will 
co-operate  with  him,  by  marching  directly  across  the  country,  from  the 
vicinity  of  Washington.  He  is  directed  to  form  a  junction  between  his  right 
wing  and  the  left  wing  of  McDowell.  McClellan  sends  forward  Morrell's 
division  of  Fitz  John  Porter's  corps,  on  the  27th  of  the  month,  in  the  direc 
tion  of  HanoVer  Court  House.  This  place  is  situated  eighteen  or  twenty 
miles  north  of  Richmond.  The  force  is  commanded  by  General  Porter. 
Two  encounters  are  had  with  the  enemy.  The  latter  is  driven  off,  after  a 
loss  in  killed  and  wounded  of  between  two  and  three  hundred  on  each  side, 
and  of  five  hundred  prisoners  by  the  enemy.  The  principal  battle  is  at 
Peake's  Station,  fifteen  miles  from  Bowling  Green,  to  which  place  the  army 
of  McDowell  has  advanced.  Rendering  difficult  the  junction  with  the  latter, 
the  order  comes  from  Washington  to  burn  the  bridges  by  which  alone  the 
re-enforcement  could  come.  At  the  last  moment,  when  the  corps  is  ready 
to  carry  out  the  President's  order  to  form  the  junction  with  McClellan, 
another  order  comes,  dated  May  24th.  This  order  directs  McDowell  to 
suspend  his  movement  toward  Richmond,  and  to  turn  to  the  aid  of  Banks, 
who  is  hard  pressed  in  the  Shenandoah  valley  by  Jackson  and  Ewell.  Banks 
had  been  weakened  by  the  withdrawal  of  Shields'  division,  which  was  sent  to 
join  McDowell ;  and  now  that  division,  with  McDowell's  corps,  was  to  be 
turned  back.  General  McDowell  promptly  obeys  the  order ;  but  he  takes 
occasion  to  point  out  to  the  President  the  impossibility  of  reaching  the  valley 
in  time  to  render  Banks  any  assistance  ;  and  that  in  the  meantime  the  great 
opportunity  of  taking  Richmond  by  co-operation  with  McClellan  would  be 
lost.  This  withdrawal  of  the  assistance  of  McDowell's  corps  is  regarded  by 
General  McClellan,  and  by  Prince  de  Joinville  who  accompanied  him,  as  fatal 
to  the  campaign.  Here  again,  may  be  perceived  the  awkward  hands  of  the 
unmilitary  politician. 

Meantime,  Gen.  Thomas  J.  Jackson  ("  Stonewall")  and  General  Ewell 
are  concentrating  for  the  capture  of  General  Banks,  whose  force  is  now  re- 


184  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

duced  to  about  6,000  men.  Their  plan  is  to  get  in  his  rear,  and  intercept 
him  in  his  attempt  to  retreat  to  Winchester.  Banks,  however,  anticipates 
their  plans  and,  by  a  timely  move  and  some  desperate  fighting,  manages 
to  make  good  his  retreat  to  the  Potomac.  The  authorities  at  Washing 
ton  are  thoroughly  alarmed  by  the  movements  of  Jackson.  Stanton,  the 
Secretary  of  War,  makes  an  earnest  appeal  to  the  Northern  governors  to 
forward,  without  delay,  all  the  militia  at  their  command.  The  governors 
promptly  respond,  and  within  twenty-four  hours  several  thousand  fresh  men 
are  ready  to  march  to  the  defense  of  Washington.  The  pursuit  of  Banks 
by  Jackson  was  prompted  by  the  purpose  of  preventing  McDowell  from 
re-enforcing  McClellan.  The  strategy  was  successful.  The  succeeding  at 
tempt  of  the  Confederate  general  upon  Harper's  Ferry  was  repulsed,  after 
repeated  assaults. 

It  soon  became  necessary  for  Jackson  to  look  out  for  his  own  safe  return. 
Fremont  was  crossing  the  mountains  from  the  west,  while  General  Shields* 
division  menaced  him  from  the  east.  At  Cross  Keys,  near  Harrisonburg, 
a  severe  but  indecisive  engagement  took  place.  The  Confederates  were  re 
pulsed  and  pursued  by  Fremont  for  a  few  miles,  when  the  latter  turned  back, 
by  way  of  Harrisonburg,  to  New  Market.  The  forces  on  each  side  were 
twenty  to  twenty-five  thousand  men.  Jackson  retreated,  having  accom 
plished  his  object  of  drawing  off  re-enforcements  which  were  intended  for 
McClellan. 

On  the  25th  of  May,  General  McClellan  issued  an  order,  announcing  to 
his  troops  that  he  was  about  to  cross  the  Chickahominy.  He  required  them 
to  be  ready  for  battle  at  a  moment's  notice.  They  were  to  carry  three  days' 
rations  in  their  haversacks,  and  to  leave  their  knapsacks  with  their  wagons. 
They  were  enjoined  to  be  cool,  firm,  and  to  preserve  compact  order ;  to  aim 
low,  and  rely  on  the  bayonet.  On  the  same  day  he  completes  the  repair  of 
the  bridges  across  the  Chickahominy.  He  orders  an  advance  in  the  direc 
tion  of  Richmond.  He  expects  to  provoke  an  engagement ;  but  McClellan, 
supposing  that  General  Jackson  had  come  over  from  the  valley  and  united 
his  forces  with  those  of  Lee,  the  general  advance  is  not  rapid.  In  the  mean 
time  Casey's  division  and  other  Union  troops  have  crossed  the  Chickahominy, 
and  are  encamped  at  Fair  Oaks,  where  they  are  afterwards  suddenly  attacked 
and  routed  by  the  enemy  in  overwhelming  force.  The  Confederates,  finding 
that  McDowell's  corps  has  not  formed  a  connection  with  McClellan,  decide 
to  attack  the  latter.  A  new  arrangement  is  again  made  by  the  Washington 
authorities.  McDowell's  corps  is  made  a  part  of  the  Army  of  Virginia,  to 
be  commanded  by  General  Pope,  and  with  headquarters  in  front  of  Wash 
ington. 

Resulting  from  the  crossing  of  the  Chickahominy  was  the  great  battle 
which  took  place  on  May  3ist  and  June  ist  at  Fair  Oaks  and  Seven  Pines. 
Like  that  at  Pittsburg  Landing,  it  resulted  in  defeat  to  the  Union  forces  on 


McCLELLAN  IN  FRONT  OF  RICHMOND.  185 

the  first  day,  with  a  recovery  of  the  lost  ground  and  the  defeat  of  the  enemy 
on  the  second.  And  as  in  the  one  battle  the  Confederate  commander,  Gen. 
Albert  Sidney  Johnston,  was  killed,  so  in  the  other  the  Confederate  com 
mander,  Gen.  Joseph  E.  Johnston,  was  seriously  wounded,  and  compelled 
to  leave  the  field.  The  Confederates  fell  back  upon  the  works  around  Rich 
mond  after  the  fight.  The  Unionists  were  in  no  condition  to  attack  these 
formidable  defenses.  If  the  entire  force  under  General  McClellan  could  have 
been  brought  over  the  Chickahominy  on  the  second  day,  he  might  possibly, 
but  not  probably,  have  carried  Richmond  by  assault.  But  the  order  to  cross 
came  too  late,  in  view  of  the  heavy  rains,  which  swelled  the  stream.  A 
part  of  the  force  on  the  north  side,  under  General  Sumner,  arrived  in 
time  on  the  afternoon  of  the  3ist  to  prevent  disaster.  He  turned  the  tide  of 
victory  on  the  day  following,  just  as  General  Buell's  appearance  on  the  field  of 
Pittsburg  Landing  changed  the  fortunes  of  that  day.  There  may  have  been 
reasons  for  leaving  Casey's  division  exposed  to  the  attack  of  so  strong  a  force, 
when  the  bulk  of  the  army  had  not  passed  over  the  river,  which  are  not  ap 
parent  to  the  casual  reader.  The  Confederate  loss  in  killed  and  wounded 
was  estimated  at  8,000  ;  the  Union  at  5,000  men. 

Active  operations  against  Richmond  are  now  suspended  until  near 
the  middle  of  the  month  of  June,  when,  on  the  i3th,  Gen.  J.  E.  B.  Stuart 
is  sent  on  a  reconnoissance  in  rear  of  the  IJnion  position,  at  the  head  of 
1,500  cavalry.  He  crosses  the  Chickahominy.  He  sweeps  round  to  Ash 
land  and  Hanover  Court  House.  There  he  encounters  small  bodies  of 
Union  cavalry.  They  give  way  before  his  superior  force.  Whatever  gov 
ernment  property  comes  in  his  way  is  carried  off  or  destroyed.  Turning 
then  to  the  east,  he  destroys  some  transports  near  the  mouth  of  the  Pa- 
munky  River,  as  well  as  commissary  stores.  After  making  a  narrow  escape 
of  being  captured,  he  returns  safely  on  the  i5th  to  the  main  army  before 
Richmond.  This  bold  reconnoissance  of  the  enemy  convinces  General 
McClellan  that  there  is  danger  of  having  his  communications  with  the  York 
River  broken,  and  that  it  may  be  necessary  to  rely  upon  the  James. 

Gen.  u  Stonewall "  Jackson,  on  the  26th,  in  execution  of  the  plan  adopted 
by  a  council  of  war,  moves  against  the  right  flank  of  McClellan,  which 
rests  on  the  north,  or  left  bank  of  the  Chickahominy.  This  movement  leads 
to  a  battle  at  Mechanicsville,  a  village  ten  miles  north  of  Richmond.  The 
Union  forces  there  consist  of  General  McCall's  Pennsylvania  Reserves, 
aided  by  the  commands  of  Generals  Morrell  and  Sykes,  amounting  to  13,000 
men.  To  these  are  added,  while  the  battle  rages,  Duryea's  Zouaves  and 
some  other  troops,  amounting  to  two  or  three  thousand  men  The  Union 
ists  are  well  posted  and  fortified,  and  with  well-directed  artillery  they  repel 
the  fierce  assaults  of  the  superior  force  of  Confederates, — now  commanded  by 
Gen.  Robert  E.  Lee, —  during  several  hours,  until  nightfall.  Then  the  latter 
draw  off*.  The  Union  loss  is  eighty  killed,  and  150  wounded  ;  while  the  Con- 
is 


l86  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

federates,  under  Lee,  Longstreet  and  the  two  Hills,  from  their  more  ex 
posed  condition,  lose  a  thousand  or  more  men. 

General  McClellan  believes  that  the  force  of  the  enemy  in  and  around 
Richmond  is  200,000  men,  while  his  own  is  only  95,000.  He  is  doubtless 
mistaken  in  this  supposition,  but  acting  on  it,  he  decides  upon  the  dangerous 
experiment  of  changing  his  base  from  the  York  River  to  the  James.  Upon 
the  latter  he  can  be  supported  by  the  gunboats ;  and,  if  necessary,  he  can 
take  refuge  in  the  transports  which  had  been  sent  up  that  stream  under 
their  protection.  The  Confederate  commander  fails,  at  first,  to  comprehend 
the  purpose  of  General  McClellan ;  so  that  while  the  latter  is  having  his 
forces  moved  south,  across  the  Chickahominy,  Lee  is  sending  forward  re- 
enforcements  to  the  north  side  of  that  river.  The  result  is,  that  the  main 
bodies  of  the  two  armies  are  separated  by  a  stream  which  has  been  rendered 
impassable  by  the  destruction  of  the  bridges  behind  the  retreating  Unionists. 
Mechanicsville  is  situated  upon  the  northern  bank  of  the  Chickahominy ; 
and  when  General  McCall,  the  commander  of  the  Union  forces  at  that 
point  withdrew  and  moved  down  the  stream,  the  Confederates,  mistaking  the 
purpose,  cross  over,  some  to  follow  him,  and  others  to  move  northward  to 
the  Pamunky.  They  cross,  expecting  to  find  vast  stores  of  provisions,  and 
intending  to  destroy  the  connections  of  the  Unionists  by  the  way  of  York 
River.  These  counter  movements  of  the  opposing  forces  take  place  on  the 
27th.  But  it  is  not  without  a  "desperate  battle  at  Games'  Mills,  in  which  vic 
tory  alternates  from  side  to  side.  Although  neither  claim  to  have  gained  the 
dayi  the  Unionists,  under  General  Foster,  make  good  their  retreat  across 
the  river,  and  destroy  the  bridges  behind  them.  The  Confederates  are 
thus  held  in  check  by  the  necessity  of  rebuilding  the  bridges ;  while  the 
Unionists  gain  a  day  in  their  march  through  White  Oak  Swamp  to  the 
James  River. 

The  Confederates  now  flatter  themselves  that  the  whole  of  McClellan's 
army  will  be  captured.  It  is  not  until  they  have  advanced  to  the  White 
House,  where  they  are  disappointed  in  finding  the  place  abandoned  and  all 
army  supplies  removed  or  destroyed,  that  they  realize  the  truth  that  McClel 
lan's  whole  army  is  on  the  south  side  of  the  Chickahominy,  falling  back  in 
good  order  to  the  James  River.  The  bridges  must  be  rebuilt  before  they  can 
pursue,  and  this  consumes  a  day.  The  Union  forces  under  Sumner  and 
Franklin  which  had  been  left  at  Fair  Oaks,  evacuate  their  works  at  that 
place  on  the  morning  of  the  29th,  and  move  back  a  short  distance  on  the 
Williamsburg  road,  to  the  railroad  at  Savage  Station.  In  the  afternoon  they 
are  attacked  with  great  fury.  The  enemy  are  repelled  by  the  steady  fire  of 
the  artillery,  and  the  firm  line  of  Hooker's  division.  During  the  night  Sum 
ner  and  Heintzelman,  covering  the  rear,  continue  their  march  to  the  other 
side  of  White  Oak  Swamp.  At  this  point,  on  the  following  day,  a  severe 
battle  is  fought,  in  which  the  Confederates  are  defeated. 


McCLELLAN'S  CHANGE  OF  BASE  AND  REMOVAL.  187 

On  the  afternoon  and  evening  of  the  next  day, — July  ist,  —  the  battle  of 
Malvern  Hill  is  fought.  The  Union  forces  are  under  the  immediate  com 
mand  of  Gen.  Fitz  John  Porter.  This  is  one  of  the  most  desperate  conflicts 
of  the  war.  The  Confederates  are  repulsed  and  driven  back  with  fearful 
loss  ;  and  at  one  time  it  seems  as  though  the  great  purpose  of  the  campaign 
would  be  realized  in  the  capture  of  Richmond.  But  as  McClellan  antici 
pates  that  the  Confederates  will  soon  be  heavily  re-enforced,  it  is  not  his  plan 
to  pursue  them.  Instead,  he  falls  back  to  Harrison's  Landing  on  the  James 
River,  and  there  forms  an  entrenched  camp,  where  he  remains  until  his  army 
moves  back  again  to  the  defense  of  Washington.  The  contest  at  Malvern 
Hill  closed  the  celebrated  "  Seven  Days'  Battles,"  in  which  the  Union  troops 
lost  15,849  men,  and  the  Confederates  19,849.  Shortly  after  his  Penin 
sular  Campaign,  General  McClellan  was  removed  from  the  army. 

The  failure  to  take  Richmond  by  the  way  of  the  peninsula  induced  General 
Halleck,  who  became,  in  July,  commander-in-chief,  to  withdraw  the  Army  of 
the  Potomac  from  that  position,  and  to  place  it  at  Acquia  Creek  and  Fred- 
ericksburg.  The  correspondence  between  Generals  Halleck  and  McClellan 
shows  that  the  latter  thought  it  impracticable  to  resume  the  attack  on  Rich 
mond  without  a  re-enforcement  of  35,000  men  ;  while  the  former  held  it  to 
be  impossible  to  send  such  a  force  without  exposing  Washington  and  Mary 
land  to  imminent  danger. 

In  the  meantime,  as  has  been  stated,  a  new  army  is  formed  of  the  forces 
under  Fremont,  Banks,  and  McDowell.  It  is  called  the  Army  of  Virginia. 
General  John  Pope  is  placed  in  command  of  it.  He  arouses  great  expecta 
tions.  The  Confederates,  finding  McClellan  leaving  the  peninsula,  form  the 
iDold  design  of  marching  into  Northern  territory.  They  propose  to  capture 
Washington  and  Baltimore.  Their  plans  contemplate  ulterior  conquests, 
which  would  lead  to  the  acknowledgment  of  Southern  independence.  The 
first  collision  of  the  hostile  forces  in  this  northern  advance  movement 
is  at  Cedar  Mountain,  Mitchell's  station,  on  the  Orange  and  Alexandria 
Railroad,  about  seventy  miles  southwest  of  Alexandria.  The  Confederates 
under  Jackson  are  the  assailants.  After  driving  the  Union  forces  for  a  mile 
or  more,  the  former  are  repulsed  and  held  at  bay,  until  the  latter,  under 
Banks,  are  re-enforced.  The  Confederates  then  draw  off,  and  are  pursued  as 
far  as  the  Rapidan,  over  which  stream  they  retreat  safely.  The  Unionists 
lose  1,500  in  killed,  wounded  and  missing.  The  Confederate  loss  is  consid 
erable  ;  but  it  is  placed  much  below  the  loss  of  the  Unionists. 

A  few  days  after  this  battle  a  detachment  of  Confederate  cavalry  is 
captured,  bearing  an  important  letter  from  General  Lee.  It  explains  his 
purpose  to  make  an  attack  on  General  Pope,  before  the  Army  of  the  Potomac 
under  General  McClellai  could  unite  with  him.  This  scheme  of  the  enemy, 
which  might  have  been  anticipated,  causes  Pope  to  fall  back  and  avoid  a 
battle  as  long  as  possible.  But  before  he  reaches  Manassas,  where  the 


l88  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

government  has  provided  army  stores  valued  at  a  million,  the  Confederates, 
under  Ewell,  slip  in  and  seize  them  ;  thus  furnishing  themselves  with  ample 
supplies, —  more  than  they  can  consume.  These  stores  equip  them  for  the 
Maryland  raid,  or  campaign,  and  they  yet  destroy  vast  quantities  which  they 
cannot  use. 

On  the  3oth,  a  great  battle  is  fought.  It  is  known  as  the  Second  Bull 
Run  battle,  in  which  the  losses  on  each  side  are  heavy.  The  Unionists  are 
defeated.  They  are  driven  across  Bull  Run.  Some  further  fighting  occurs 
on  the  3ist  of  August  and  the  ist  of  September,  the  result  of  which  is,  that 
General  Pope  is  forced  to  take  refuge  in  the  fortifications  around  Washington, 
with  a  loss  of  fifteen  to  twenty  thousand  men.  This  was  a  humiliating 
conclusion  of  a  campaign  which  was  opened  six  weeks  before,  with  the 
boastful  manifesto  that  General  Pope  was  accustomed  to  see  the  backs  of  his 
enemies. —  "  It  is  not  for  him  that  putteth  on  his  armor  to  boast,  as  for  him 
that  taketh  it  off." 

The  Confederates  immediately  march  into  Maryland.  They  threaten 
Washington.  They  move  up  the  Potomac.  They  cross  that  river  at  No- 
land's  Ford,  near  Point  of  Rocks.  They  continue  their  march  to  Fred 
erick. 

The  Administration  regret  having  placed  Pope  in  command.  Their  re 
liance  for  the  defense  of  Washington  fails  now,  in  the  presence  of  Lee's 
advancing  columns.  They  acknowledge  their  error.  They  restore  McClel- 
lan.  That  patriotic  officer  knows  no  humiliation,  where  his  country's  safety 
is  at  stake.  He  promptly  rallies  the  defeated  and  dispirited  Army  of  Virginia, 
and,  with  the  aid  of  some  new  recruits  and  his  veterans  of  the  Army  of  the 
Potomac,  which  are  brought  up  from  the  peninsula,  he  immediately  takes  up 
the  line  of  march  in  pursuit  of  Lee.  The  first  serious  encounter  is  at  Sharps- 
burg,  on  September  15.  In  this  battle  the  fighting  is  stubborn  on  both  sides. 
It  results  in  victory  for  the  Union  forces,  although  accompanied  by  the  loss 
of  443  killed,  and  1,806  wounded.  The  Confederate  loss  in  killed  and 
wounded  was  probably  as  large,  besides  1,500  prisoners. 

The  great  battle  of  Antietam  is  now  fought.  It  is  named  from  the  small 
stream  of  that  name,  a  tributary  of  the  Potomac.  Upon  its  banks  fighting  be 
gins  on  September  the  zyth.  Both  sides  claim  to  be  the  victors,  but  the  sub 
stantial  fact  remains  that  the  Confederates  retreat  across  the  Potomac.  They 
thus  abandon  their  grand  expedition  into  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania,  which 
was  to  embrace  the  capture  of  Washington  and  Baltimore.  General  McClel- 
lan  states  that  during  his  brief  campaign  in  Maryland,  he  captured  "  thirteen 
guns,  seven  caissons,  nine  limbers,  two  field-forges,  two  caisson-bodies,  thirty- 
nine  colors,  and  one  signal-flag,"  and  says:  "We  have  not  lost  a  single 
gun  or  color."  These  statements  can  leave  no  doubt  that  the  Unionists  won 
the  day.  McClellan  admits  that  in  the  two  battles  he  lost  a  total  of  14,794, 
in  killed,  wounded,  and  missing.  He  states  that  3,000  of  the  enemy  were 


ANTIETAM   WON  AND    HARPER'S  FERRY  LOST.  189 

buried  upon  the  ground  by  the  Union  forces,  besides  an  estimated  number  of  500 
buried  by  the  enemy  before  retiring.  He  supposes  the  wounded  were  in  the 
usual  proportion  to  the  killed.  He  says  that  5,000  prisoners  were  taken ; 
and  concludes  that  the  Confederate  losses,  including  stragglers,  must  have 
amounted  to  at  least  thirty  thousand.  The  Confederates  place  their  loss 
much  lower.  The  foregoing  statements  refer  entirely  to  the  results  of  the 
righting  on  the  north  side  of  the  Potomac  ;  but  in  estimating  the  achieve 
ments  of  the  opposing  forces,  there  is  to  be  reckoned  the  capture  of  Harper's 
Ferry  by  the  Confederates,  with  1 1 ,583  prisoners,  forty-seven  guns,  and  other 
munitions  of  war.  This  disgraceful  surrender  was  the  subject  of  investiga 
tion  by  a  court  of  inquiry.  The  court  decided  that  it  was  caused  by  imbe 
cility  on  the  part  of  the  officers  in  charge  —  General  Miles,  who  was  mortally 
wounded,  and  Colonel  Ford,  of  the  Ohio  volunteers.  The  latter  was  dis 
missed  the  service. 

It  is  hard  to  insert  in  this  chapter  as  cold  a  fact  as  that  in  the  past  sentence. 
It  is  hard  to  say  of  genial  Colonel  "  Tom  Ford,"  of  Ohio,  that  he  disgraced 
himself  in  this  surrender.  It  would  not  be  so  remorselessly  said,  if  the  repu 
tation  of  one  of  Ohio's  most  gallant  officers  of  the  war  had  not  been  most 
unjustly  involved  in  that  affair.  The  writer  refers  to  Col.  William  H. 
Trimble.  He  was  the  son  of  Allen  Trimble,  an  early  governor  of  Ohio, 
and  well  known  to  Kentucky.  The  thoughts  of  Colonel  Trimble  were  those 
of  patriotic  duty.  Upon  a  lofty  plane,  supported  by  a  principle  only  not 
religious,  and  by  a  courage  that  knew  no  fear, —  he  was,  to  some  extent, 
involved  in  the  surrender,  but  by  no  fault  of  his.  The  wheat  is  often  among 
the  chaff. 

Colonel  Ford  was  a  man  of  great  physique.  He  was  a  rare  Republican 
speaker  upon  that  western  tribune  —  the  stump.  He  never  failed  to  tell  an 
anecdote  well,  whether  it  had  the  logical  application  or  not.  The  writer 
differed  with  his  Know-Nothing  views,  and  suffered  from  his  trenchant  Re 
publican  tendencies  and  talks,  but  he  could  not  resist  his  abounding  bonhomie, 
which  never  failed  to  ingratiate  an  average  audience.  Colonel  Ford  has  been 
known  to  speak  for  hours  and  hours,  standing  —  on  account  of  his  corns  — 
in  his  stocking  feet.  He  could  face  any  audience.  Yet  the  finest  scenery 
vouchsafed  to  Americans,  and  the  most  thoroughly  strategic  point  in  our  four 
years'  war,  failed  to  inspire  him  with  the  elements  of  soldiery  and  manhood. 

The  Confederates  abandon  Harper's  Ferry  immediately  after  Antietam. 
This  is  another  proof  that  they  were  defeated  and  driven  back  ;  but  the  cap 
ture  of  the  place,  with  so  large  a  number  of  prisoners,  makes  a  large  offset 
against  their  losses. 

The  expulsion  of  the  Confederates  from  west  Tennessee  and  north  Mis 
sissippi  in  the  last  days  of  May,  after  the  battle  of  Shiloh  and  the  capture  of 
Corinth,  has  been  recounted.  Their  next  rallying  point  was  at  Chattanooga, 
under  Gen.  Braxton  Bragg,  with  an  army  of  45,000  men,  divided  into  three 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

corps.  These  were  commanded,  respectively,  by  Major-Generals  Wm.  J. 
Hardee,  Leonidas  Polk,  and  E.  Kirby  Smith.  General  Smith,  with  15,000 
men,  struck  off  from  Knoxville  into  eastern  Kentucky,  and  thence  down  into 
the  heart  of  the  state.  At  Richmond,  the  county-seat  of  Madison  County, 
he  encountered  an  inferior  force  of  Unionists,  who  offered  battle ;  but  the 
latter  were  defeated,  after  a  hard  fight,  lasting  from  the  early  morning  until 
night.  The  Confederate  general  marched  thence  to  Lexington,  a  wealthy 
town  of  ten  or  twelve  thousand  inhabitants  in  the  "blue  grass"  region. 
No  opposition  was  or  could  be  made  to  his  entrance.  He  issued  a  procla 
mation  declaring  that  he  came  not  as  an  enemy,  but  as  a  friend  and  liberator 
of  the  state  from  the  despotic  rule  of  the  North  ;  that  discipline  would  be 
maintained  in  his  army  ;  and  that  the  food  necessary  to  maintain  it  would  be 
paid  for.  On  the  6th  of  September,  he  takes  possession  of  Frankfort,  the 
capital  of  the  state.  The  governor  and  legislature,  in  anticipation  of  his 
coming,  remove,  with  the  public  archives,  to  Louisville.  The  banks  of 
Richmond,  Lexington,  and  Frankfort  also  send  their  treasures,  amounting 
to  a  million  of  dollars,  to  the  northern  borders  of  the  state.  The  governor, 
James  F.  Robinson,  issues  a  proclamation  calling  on  the  people  to  rally  and 
expel  the  invader,  for  the  honor  and  integrity  of  the  government.  The 
people  of  Cincinnati  and  the  river  counties  of  Ohio  are  greatly  excited, 
and  in  response  to  the  call  of  Governor  Todd,  defensive  measures  are 
adopted  without  delay.  Gen.  Lew.  Wallace  is  placed  in  command  of  Cin 
cinnati,  Covington,  and  Newport,  and  martial  law  is  proclaimed. 

The  writer  remembers  well  two  incidents  of  this  time  :  First,  —  he  gave 
to  Governor  Crittenden  an  urgent  invitation  —  if  driven  from  his  home  at 
Frankfort — to  come  to  the  writer's  house  and  home  in  Columbus,  Ohio. 
The  governor's  response  was  characteristic  for  its  courtesy  and  pluck : 
''Never  can  I  leave  Old  Kentucky,  sir  —  never,  when  she  is  in  trouble.'* 
The  other  incident  is  connected  with  the  excitement  in  middle  and  south 
western  Ohio.  The  author  was  then  a  candidate  for  Congress  ;  and  being  a 
Democrat  was  a  "  suspect."  Thousands  of  citizens  rally  to  defend  the  Ohio 
borders  and  Cincinnati.  It  is  called  the  Squirrel  Campaign.  Shot-guns 
are  the  weapons.  Old  powder-horns  that  belonged  to  the  time  of  Simon 
Kenton  and  Jonathan  Zane  are  brought  from  their  hiding-places.  The  op 
posing  Republican  candidate  for  Congress  is  Judge  Samuel  Shellabarger, 
who  volunteers  while  the  writer  remains  at  home  doing  much  recruiting  for 
the  army, —  and  for  Congress.  The  author  aids  in  raising  a  regiment  for 
Col.  Wm.  T.  McMillern,  ex-postmaster  at  New  Orleans.  The  regiment 
is  raw.  It  is  surrounded  before  it  has  gone  far  into  Kentucky  and  sent  home 
on  parole  by  order  of  Gen.  E.  Kirby  Smith,  "  to  vote  for  the  Democratic  con 
gressman."  This  order  did  the  writer  some  damage ;  but  as  Judge  Shella 
barger  was  not  reaping  many  laurels  on  his  squirrel  adventure,  the  damage 
was  compensated  by  the  absence  of  that  gifted  competitor.  Affright  over 


BATTLES  AT  CORINTH  AND  STONE  RIVER.  191 

the  escapade  of  the  Ohio  recruits  into  the  "blue  grass"  country  soon  sub 
sided,  and  the  Democrat  was  elected  on  the  Lincoln  platform  of  the  Union. 

Meanwhile,  General  Bragg,  with  the  residue  of  the  army  under  his  com 
mand,  moves  forward  to  the  support  of  Gen.  E.  Kirby  Smith.  On  the  5th 
of  September  he  enters  Kentucky.  He  strikes  the  Louisville  and  Nashville 
Railroad  at  Bowling  Green.  Munfordville,  a  point  on  the  road  some 
twenty-five  or  thirty  miles  further  north,  is  held  by  4,500  Union  troops. 
But  after  a  weak  defense,  in  which  the  loss  of  life  is  inconsiderable,  the 
place  is  surrendered,  and  the  garrison  made  prisoners.  ,The  railroad  bridge 
over  Green  River  is  burned,  by  which  the  connection  between  Louisville 
and  Nashville  is  broken.  Apart  from  the  desire  to  gain  Kentucky  to  the 
Southern  cause,  another  main  object  of  the  expedition  of  Bragg  was  to  ob 
tain  supplies  of  provisions.  The  resources  of  the  South  in  meat  and  grain 
were  nearly  exhausted,  while  Kentucky  abounded  in  these  necessaries. 
Bragg  was  closely  followed  by  General  Buell  with  a  superior  force,  and 
was  driven  back  out  of  the  state,  by  way  of  Cumberland  Gap.  The  Con 
federate  general  adroitly  avoided  a  battle.  He  succeeded  in  carrying  off 
some  four  thousand  wagon-loads  of  provisions,  and  thousands  of  fat  cattle. 

During  these  operations  in  Kentucky,  the  Confederates  under  General 
Price  having  rallied  their  scattered  forces,  threatened  active  hostilities 
against  General  Grant,  who  now  succeeded  to  the  chief  command  on  the 
Mississippi,  with  General  Rosecrans  second  in  command.  A  severe  en 
gagement  occurred  at  luka,  on  the  I9th  of  September,  in  the  State  of 
Mississippi,  in  which  the  Confederates  were  defeated  by  the  Union  forces 
under  the  immediate  command  of  Rosecrans.  The  losses  were  about  equal. 
The  Confederates  lost  three  generals  killed,  namely,  Lytle,  Berry,  and  Whit- 
field.  It  was  expected  by  the  Confederate  commander,  that  General  Van 
Dorn  would  be  able  to  reach  the  field  of  operations  before  the  impending 
battle  should  come  on.  But  in  this  he  was  mistaken.  That  officer  was  not 
able  to  reach  the  scene  of  hostilities  until  some  days  later,  when  a  combined 
attack  upon  the  strongly  fortified  works  at  Corinth  was  agreed  on.  General 
Rosecrans  had  added  greatly  to  its  strength.  He  was  prepared  for  the  as 
sault,  which  was  expected  to  be  made  by  the  forty  thousand  Confederates 
under  Van  Dorn  and  Price.  A  desperate  battle  was  fought  on  the  3d  and 
4th  of  October.  It  resulted  in  the  defeat  and  rout  of  the  assailants,  with  great 
loss.  General  Rosecrans  states  that  his  troops  buried  i  ,423  of  the  enemy's 
dead,  —  left  on  the  field,  that  he  captured  2,268  prisoners,  and  that  the 
Confederate  wounded  must  have  exceeded  5,000.  Among  the  prisoners 
were  137  field  officers,  captains,  and  subalterns,  representing  sixty-nine  regi 
ments.  There  were  captured,  also,  3,300  stands  of  arms,  thirteen  batteries, 
fourteen  stands  of  colors,  and  other  trophies. 

The  prolonged  battle  of  Stone  River,  near  Murfreesborough,  was  fought  by 
the  Union  forces  under  General  Rosecrans,  and  the  Confederates  under  Gen- 


192  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

eral  Bragg,  on  the  last  day  of  the  year  1862  and  the  first  days  of  1863.  Gen 
eral  Rosecrans  had  been  appointed  to  the  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Ohio  in 
October,  and  ordered  to  Cincinnati  to  take  the  command.  Having  gathered 
up  his  scattered  forces,  and  added  to  them  the  raw  levies  which  were  raised 
during  the  autumn,  he  takes  up  the  line  of  march  through  Kentucky,  driving 
the  Confederates  before  him.  He  encounters  no  considerable  force  of  the 
enemy  until  he  arrives  in  the  vicinity  of  Nashville.  At  this  point  he  is 
confronted  by  the  large  force  under  the  command  of  General  Bragg.  This 
able  officer  gradually  draws  back  until  he  reaches  Stone  River,  near  Murfrees- 
borough,  thirty  miles  southeast  of  Nashville.  During  the  first  day's  fight, 
on  December  3ist,  the  Union  forces  are  badly  beaten  and  driven  before  the 
victorious  enemy ;  but,  as  happened  at  Shiloh  and  on  other  battle-fields  dur 
ing  the  war,  the  contest  is  renewed  on  the  following  day,  and  finally,  after 
three  days'  hard  fighting,  results  in  victory  for  the  Union  forces.  The  Union 
loss  was  8,485  in  killed  and  wounded,  and  3,600  missing.  The  Confederates 
must  have  lost  as  many,  besides  being  driven  from  the  field  and  pursued  by 
the  victors. 

After  the  battle  of  Antietam,  the  Army  of  the  Potomac,  under  General 
McClellan,  remained  stationary  for  more  than  a  month.  In  the  meantime 
the  Confederate  General  Stuart  crossed  the  Potomac  and  invaded  Pennsyl 
vania,  with  a  force  of  2,500  cavalry.  They  entered  Chambersburg,  burnt 
the  government  store-houses  and  machine-shops,  and  returned  safely  into 
Virginia  with  1,000  captured  horses.  Great  complaint  was  made  against 
General  McClellan  by  the  public,  and  he  was  censured  for  his  inactivity,  by 
the  Administration.  The  general-in-chief,  by  order  of  the  President,  on  the 
6th  of  October  addressed  a  note  to  him,  directing  him  to  cross  the  Potomac 
and  give  battle  to  the  enemy,  who  was  then  posted  in  the  Shenandoah 
Valley  and  along  the  Blue  Ridge.  But  for  some  cause  no  movement  was 
made  until  October  26th  ;  and  on  the  yth  of  November,  General  McClellan 
was  superseded  by  General  Burnside.  The  order  for  his  removal  reached 
him  at  Rectortown,  on  the  Manassas  Gap  Railroad.  It  was  borne  to  him  by 
Gen.  Catharinus  P.  Buckingham,  then  assistant  Secretary  of  War.  It  was 
the  most  disheartening  order  of  the  war.  It  was  a  great  surprise  to  Mc 
Clellan  and  the  army.  It  was  the  consummation  of  the  old  plot.  It  was 
doubtless  a  great  mistake,  prompted  as  much  by  popular  clamor,  as  by  a 
conviction  of  its  propriety  on  the  part  of  the  Administration. 

General  McClellan,  when  superseded,  was  moving  in  the  direction  of 
Gordonsville.  He  intended  to  cut  off  the  Confederate  army  from  its  con 
nections  with  Richmond.  General  Burnside,  however,  turned  in  the  direc 
tion  of  Fredericksburg.  There  he  was  confronted  by  the  Confederate  army, 
which  was  strongly  entrenched  south  of  the  city  upon  elevated  ground.  Here 
a  desperate  and  bloody  battle  was  fought  on  the  13!!!  and  I4th  days  of 
December.  It  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the  Union  forces  with  heavy  loss. 


THE  MISSISSIPPI  RIVER  OPENED. 


193 


General  Burnside  states  his  loss  at  12,321,  in  killed,  wounded,  and  missing. 
On  the  night  of  the  I4th  he  retreated  to  the  north  side  of  the  river  without 
further    molestation.      The    Confederate    loss    was    inconsiderable.      They 
fought  behind  their  entrenchments,  while  the  Unionists  were  the  assailants. 
In  February,    1862,   Commodore   Farragut   led   a  naval  expedition  for 
the  capture  of  New  Orleans.      Commodore  David  D.  Porter  was   second 
in  command.      Gen.  B.  F.  Butler,  with  about  fifteen  thousand  men,  ac 
companied  the  naval  force.      The  Confederates  had  possession  of  the  old 
United  States  forts,  Jackson  on  the  right,  or  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi, 
and  St.  Philip  on  the  left.     They  had  armed  them  with  126  guns.     These 
fortifications  are  situate  about  seventy-five  miles  below  New  Orleans,  and 
twenty-five  miles  from  the  mouth  of  the  river.     Farragut's  fleet  consisted  of 
seven  steam  sloops  of  nine  to  twenty-six  guns,  ten  gunboats  of  four  to  twelve 
guns,  and  a  sailing  sloop  of  seventeen  guns.     His  mortar  fleet  consisted  of 
twenty  schooners,  each  mounting  one  large  mortar  and  two  small  guns.     He 
had  also  five  other  steamers,  mounting  twenty-eight  guns.     It  was  not  until 
April  8th,  that  all  the  vessels  were  got  over  the  bar.     The  bombardment 
commenced  on  the  i8th.     It  was  continued  almost  incessantly  until  the  24th. 
After  a  terrific  cannonade,  the  fleet  passed  above  the  forts,  leaving  them  in  a 
crippled  condition.     Farragut  proceeded  up  the  river  to  New  Orleans.     He 
demanded  of  the  mayor  the  surrender  of  the  city.     After  some  hesitation  the 
demand  was  complied  with,  and  General  Butler,  with  his  military  force,  took 
possession  and  established  martial  law.     Forts  St.  Philip  and  Jackson  sur 
rendered  to  Porter  on  the  27th,  after  some  further  resistance.     During  the 
conflict  with  the  forts  the  Confederate  iron-clad  fleet  came  down  the  river  to 
their  assistance.     But  to  the  last  one  these  formidable  floating  batteries  were 
captured  or  destroyed.    The  passage  of  these  forts,  supported  by  the  Confed 
erate  fleet,  is  regarded  is  one  of  the  most  heroic  achievements  of  the  war. 
After  taking  possession  of  New  Orleans  and  adjacent  parts  of  Louisiana, 
Commodore  Farragut  penetrated  up  the  Mississippi  with  his  gunboats,  and 
having  passed  the  strong  fortifications  at  Vicksburg,  aided  the  military  in 
an  unsuccessful  attempt  upon  that  strongly  fortified  place. 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  END  OF  THE  WAR. 

VICKSBURG  CAMPAIGN  OF  1863— OTHER  MOVEMENTS  OF  GRANT  —  BANKS  AT 
PORT  HUDSON  —  BURNSIDE  SENT  WEST  —  HE  ARRESTS  VALLANDIGHAM  — 
HIS  WONDERFUL  STRATEGY  IN  CAPTURING  THE  DEMOCRATIC  ORATOR 
—THE  TRIAL— THE  AUTHOR'S  EVIDENCE  —  HOOKER  DEFEATED  IN  VIR 
GINIA  —  LOSS  OF  STONEWALL  JACKSON  —  POPULAR  CLAMOR  FOR  A  MOVE 
MENT  —  VINDICTIVENESS  OF  THE  RADICALS  AND  STANTON  —  MEADE  IN 
COMMAND  —  LEE  MOVES  NORTH  —  A  BOLD  DESIGN  ON  THE  CAPITAL  AND* 
NORTHERN  CITIES— GETTYSBURG  A  WATERLOO  —  OTHER  BATTLES  IN  TEN 
NESSEE—ATLANTA  FALLS— SHERMAN  MARCHING  THROUGH  GEORGIA  — 
THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  i864-'6s  —  THE  TENDENCY  TO  CONCENTRATE  ALL  FORCK 
FOR  THE  GRAND  DENOUEMENT  —  RICHMOND  FALLS  —  APPOMATTOX  —  RE 
SOURCES  AND  COST  OF  THE  WAR  —  THEIR  IMMENSITY  AND  THE  COMPEN 
SATIONS. 

ON  the  last  day  of  the  year  1862,  General  Sherman  was  removed 
from  the  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Tennessee,  and  General 
McClernand,  of  Illinois,  appointed  to  take  his  place. 
The  campaign  of  1863,  against  the  Confederate  army  in 
Mississippi,  was  planned  and  entered  upon  by  Gene  ~\1  Grant  in  November, 
1862.  He  proposed  to  send  Gen.  W.  T.  Sherman  and  General  McCler 
nand  down  the  Mississippi  River  with  a  strong  force,  to  be  aided  by  a  fleet 
of  gunboats,  to  assail  the  fortified  city  of  Vicksburg  in  front  and  rear,  while 
he,  with  the  body  of  his  army,  was  to  operate  in  the  state  north  and  east  of 
Vicksburg.  It  is  probable  that  this  plan"  would  have  been  attended  with 
immediate  success,  but  for  the  enterprise  of  General  Van  Dorn.  That 
Confederate  leader  came  up  behind  Grant  as  he  was  advancing  south,  and 
on  December  2oth,  captured  and  destroyed  his  vast  stores  of  arms,  provi 
sions,  clothing,  and  ammunition  at  Holly  Springs,  —  a  place  situated  on  the 
Mississippi  Central  Railroad,  about  forty  miles  southeast  of  Memphis.  The 
stores  destroyed  here  were  valued  at  between  four  and  five  millions  of  dol 
lars.  Their  destruction  had  the  effect  of  arresting  the  operations  against 
Vicksburg.  The  commander  at  Holly  Springs  was  Colonel  Murphy. 
Grant,  in  a  general  order,  denounced  the  surrender  as  disgraceful.  This 
and  other  dashes  of  the  enemy  upon  his  rear,  caused  him  to  fall  back 


SIEGE  AND  FALL  OF  VICKSBURG.  195 

upon  Holly  Springs.  He  had  already  reached  Oxford,  thirty  miles  further 
south.  The  delay  occasioned  by  Van  Dorn's  success  gave  General  Pem- 
berton  time  to  march  into  Vicksburg  with  a  large  force  of  Confederates,  to 
meet  and  thwart  the  operations  of  Sherman.  The  latter,  in  conjunction 
with  Commodore  Porter,  commenced  operations  against  the  city,  in  the 
expectation  that  General  Grant  would  co-operate  ;  but  after  some  severe 
fighting,  the  enterprise  had  to  be  abandoned.  The  loss  of  the  Unionists 
in  this  attempt  upon  Vicksburg  was  191  killed,  982  wounded,  and  756 
missing. 

The  capture  of  Arkansas  Post  was  made  on  the  nth  of  January.  It  is 
situated  a  few  miles  up  the  river  from  its  mouth,  and  was  defended  by  a 
large  Confederate  force.  The  movement  was  planned  by  General  Sherman 
and  Commodore  Porter  before  General  McClernand  took  command  of  the 
army.  To  those  officers  belongs  the  honor  of  its  execution.  The  loss  of  the 
Unionists  was  600  in  killed  and  wounded.  The  Confederates  lost  only  sixty- 
five  in  killed,  and  eighty-three  wounded  ;  but  their  whole  force  of  7,000  men 
and  officers  was  surrendered,  with  8,000  stands  of  arms,  twenty  cannon,  and 
a  large  amount  of  stores. 

General  Grant,  whose  headquarters  were  at  Memphis,  now  began  the 
campaign  which  resulted  in  the  siege  and  capture  of  Vicksburg.  This  great 
event  of  the  war  —  the  capitulation  of  Pemberton  and  his  army — was  con 
cluded  on  the  4th  of  July,  1863.  Its  effect  was  to  open  the  Mississippi 
to  northern  commerce,  to  divide  the  Confederacy  into  two  parts,  and,  taken 
in  connection  with  the  Gettysburg  victory  of  the  same  day,  greatly  to  revive 
the  hopes  of  Northern  people  that  the  restoration  of  the  Union  was  at  hand. 
The  result  of  the  campaign,  as  stated  by  General  Grant,  was  the  defeat  of 
the  enemy  in  five  battles  outside  of  Vicksburg,  the  occupation  of  Jackson, 
the  capital  of  the  State  of  Mississippi,  and  the  capture  of  Vicksburg,  its  gar 
rison  and  munitions  of  war,  with  37,000  prisoners,  including  fifteen  general 
officers,  —  while  at  least  ten  thousand  of  the  enemy  were  killed  and  wounded, 
and  thousands  straggled  off,  never  to  be  collected  again.  Besides  railroad 
cars,  locomotives,  steamboats,  and  cotton,  the  arms  and  munitions  of  war 
surrendered  were  sufficient  for  an  army  of  sixty  thousand  men.  The  Union 
losses  in  the  series  of  battles  around  and  at  Vicksburg  were  1,243  killed,  7,095 
wounded,  and  537  missing  ;  total,  8,875.  President  Lincoln,  in  a  brief  letter 
to  General  Grant,  made  his  "grateful  acknowledgment  for  the  almost  ines 
timable  service  "  he  had  done  the  country.  He  admitted  that  in  the  progress 
of  the  campaign,  where  he  feared  a  mistake  had  been  made  in  the  course 
pursued,  the  general  was  right,  and  he  was  wrong.  The  achievements  in 
this  campaign  permanently  established  the  supremacy  of  General  Grant  in 
military  affairs.  They  promoted  him  to  the  chief  command,  and  afterward 
added  civic  honor  to  his  laurels.  The  fall  of  Jackson,  the  capital  of  the 
State  of  Mississippi,  followed  that  of  Vicksburg  within  two  weeks.  It 


196  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

involved  a  loss  by  the    Confederates   of  an   immense  quantity  of  military 
stores. 

In  March,  General  Banks,  with  an  army  of  15,000  men,  and  accompa 
nied  by  a  naval  force  under  Admiral  Farragut,  laid  siege  to  Port  Hudson. 
This  was  a  strongly  fortified  position  on  the  Mississippi,  about  twenty-five 
miles  above  Baton  Rouge.  The  investment  was,  however,  rather  formal, 
than  substantial.  After  an  unsuccessful  bombardment  by  the  fleet,  the  en 
terprise  was  suspended.  The  Union  troops  crossed  the  river,  into  the 
Teche  country,  in  pursuit  of  the  enemy.  In  this  expedition  a  great  quantity 
of  Confederate  munitions  of  war  was  captured  and  destroyed  without  much 
resistance. 

The  siege  of  Port  Hudson  was  again  commenced  by  Banks  on  May  2ist. 
Some  progress  had  been  made  in  pushing  the  approaches,  when,  on  the 
7th  of  July,  the  Confederate  commander,  Gen.  Frank  Gardner,  heard 
through  some  Union  soldiers,  that  Vicksburg  had  fallen.  He  thereupon 
addressed  a  note  to  General  Banks,  stating  that  if  it  were  true  that  Vicks 
burg  had  surrendered,  his  position  at  Port  Hudson  would  be  no  longer  tena 
ble,  and  that  he  would  agree  to  terms  of  surrender.  On  being  assured  by  a 
dispatch  from  General  Grant  that  the  information  was  correct,  he  promptly 
agreed  to  surrender.  The  terms  were  agreed  on  by  a  commission  of  officers, 
on  July  8th.  The  surrender  embraced  6,233  prisoners,  fifty-one  pieces  of 
artillery,  and  a  large  supply  of  ammunition  and  small  arms. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  year  the  Union  cause  was  not  in  a  prosperous 
condition  in  the  East.  After  the  battle  of  Fredericksburg,  the  Army  of  the 
Potomac,  under  General  Burnside,  remained  comparatively  quiet  for  some 
weeks.  Then  a  movement  was  made  to  cross  the  Rappahannock  above  Fred 
ericksburg  in  mid-winter,  which  failed,  owing  to  the  impassable  condition  of 
the  roads.  The  soldiers  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  ever  after  humorously 
called  this  movement — "  Burnside's  Mud  March."  After  this  a  serious 
quarrel  was  developed  between  Burnside  and  his  commanders.  He  recom 
mended  the  dismissal  of  Generals  Hooker,  Newton,  and  Brooks ;  and  that 
Generals  Franklin,  W.  F.  Smith,  Sturgis,  and  others  be  relieved  from  duty.  If 
the  President  refused  to  sanction  these  recommendations,  General  Burnside 
tendered  his  resignation.  The  President  declined  to  sanction  the  dismissal 
and  removal  of  the  officers  named,  and  also  declined  to  accept  the  resignation. 
Burnside  was  soon  after  transferred  to  the  West,  and  placed  in  command  of 
the  Department  of  the  Ohio.  He  was  succeeded  in  the  Army  of  the  Poto 
mac  by  Gen.  Joseph  Hooker,  whose  dismissal  from  the  army  he  had  recom 
mended. 

General  Burnside,  in  the  beginning  of  May,  1863,  was  stationed  at  Cin 
cinnati.  Ohio  was  not  in  flagrant  war,  in  any  sense,  yet  this  defeated  gene 
ral  began  belligerent  operations  at  once.  He  sent  a  portion  of  his  staff  in 
citizen's  dress  to  Mount  Vernon,  in  that  state,  to  report  Mr.  Vallandigham's 


GENERAL  HOOKER  AT  CHANCELLORSVILLE.  197 

speech  !  As  the  testimony  turned  out,  and  as  the  author  of  this  book  testi 
fied  on  oath,  fortified  by  Vallandigham's  statement,  the  words  alleged  against 
the  latter  were  spoken  by  the  writer.  The  arrest  of  Vallandigham  followed 
on  the  5th  of  May,  1863.  It  was  not  a  brave  exploit,  though  eminently 
strategic.  It  was  described  at  that  time  by  the  author,  with  Caesar's  brevity, 
thus:  "  Night  —  special  train  —  house  guarded  near  V.'s  residence  —  depot 
under  guard  —  quick,  cautious  movement  —  doors  broken  —  bedroom  en 
tered —  prisoner  captured  —  placed  in  cars  and  gone  —  all  in  thirty  min 
utes  ! "  The  mind  that  planned  this  dash  on  the  bedroom  of  a  Democrat  had 
just  felt  the  stings  of  defeat  at  Fredericksburg  ! 

The  author  had  been  summoned  by  telegraph  to  Cincinnati,  to  appear 
at  the  trial  forthwith.  It  was  a  rude  and  impudent  missive.  He  was  com 
manded  to  leave  on  the  night  train.  He  went  through  Dayton,  the  residence 
of  the  arrested  statesman.  The  excitement  was  intense.  So  it  was  at 
Hamilton.  The  depot  had  been  burned.  Arriving  at  Cincinnati  at  daylight 
he  had  a  conference  with  General  Burnside.  There  was  little  talk  about  the 
arrested  man,  as  the  General  said  that  word  might  be  sent  to  Mrs.  Vallan 
digham  that  her  husband  would  soon  be  released.  But  there  was  much 
talk  about  the  late  Virginia  battles  ;  and,  to  do  General  Burnside  justice,  he 
yearned  to  go  back,  as  he  said,  to  take  a  subordinate  command  under  General 
McClellan,  on  whom  he  passed  unmeasured  encomiums.  He  asked  the 
writer  to  present  his  wishes  to  President  Lincoln. 

In  the  latter  part  of  April,  General  Hooker  commenced  operations 
against  the  enemy,  who  was  entrenched  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Rappa- 
hannock.  In  the  battles  of  the  Wilderness  and  Chancellorsville,  like  that  at 
Fredericksburg  in  the  winter,  while  the  commander  of  the  Union  army  had 
perhaps  the  advantage  in  the  number  of  men,  the  Confederates  had  the 
advantage  of  acting  on  the  defensive.  They  fought  their  assailants  on 
their  own  chosen  ground.  It  is  true,  also,  that  General  Hooker  brought 
only  a  part,  as  it  is  said  less  than  half,  of  his  force  into  action.  He  crossed 
the  Rappahannock  about  twelve  miles  above  Fredericksburg  with  the  main 
body  of  the  army,  and  sent  General  Sedgwick  with  the  Sixth  Corps  across, 
a  few  miles  below  that  town,  to  take  and  hold  the  heights  where  Burn- 
side  had  failed.  The  intention  was  to  hold  these  heights  while  Hooker 
would  push  toward  them  in  rear  of  Fredericksburg,  and  thus  force  Lee  out 
of  his  works,  or  capture  him.  These  movements  were  made  with  great 
celerity.  Sedgwick  took  the  heights,  and  Hooker  simultaneously  reached 
the  strong  position  at  Chancellorsville.  Here,  while  Hooker  was  about  to 
push  on,  Sedgwick,  instead  of  remaining  in  the  captured  works,  finding, 
apparently,  a  small  force  in  his  front,  marched  out  to  join  the  advancing 
columns  of  Hooker.  At  this  moment,  Lee  threw  a  crushing  force  against 
Sedgwick  and  drove  him  back  to  the  river;  then  by  a  rapid  march  he 
advanced  with  his  whole  force  on  Hooker.  Jackson  ("  Stonewall")  struck 


198  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  first  blow.  It  fell  on  Schurz's  division  of  the  Eleventh  (Howard's) 
Corps.  That  division  was  in  the  advance.  Instead  of  being  on  the  qui 
vive,  the  troops  were  in  bivouac  with  arms  stacked.  The  result  was  that  they 
were  completely  routed  ;  and  two  divisions  sent  out  under  Sickles,  leading 
the  movement  in  rear  of  Fredericksburg  toward  Sedgwick,  were  for  a  while 
cut  off  from  the  main  army.  The  plan  thus  miscarried,  and  Hooker  was  put 
on  the  defensive  at  Chancellorsville.  He  entrenched  with  both  flanks  resting 
on  the  river  in  his  rear,  in  the  shape  of  a  horseshoe.  This  position  was  im 
pregnable,  and  its  defenders  were  in  high  spirits.  It  was  repeatedly  assaulted 
by  the  Confederates  with  great  loss.  But  the  movement  having  miscarried, 
Hooker,  after  holding  the  position  a  few  days,  withdrew  his  army  to  its  old 
encampments  in  front  of  Fredericksburg.  His  loss  in  killed  is  stated  at 
1,512,  in  wounded,  at  9,518,  and  2,500  missing;  total,  13,530.  General 
Hooker  claimed  that  he  had  inflicted  heavier  blows  than  he  received ;  that 
he  had  taken  from  the  enemy  5,000  prisoners,  fifteen  colors,  seven  pieces 
of  artillery,  destroyed  depots  filled  with  vast  amounts  of  stores,  destroyed 
his  communications,  and  placed  hors  de  combat  eighteen  thousand  of  the 
enemy's  chosen  troops.  This  statement  may  be  an  exaggeration,  and  yet 
the  Confederates  in  every  great  battle,  even  when  they  were  victorious,  had 
relative  losses,  which  tended  to  their  exhaustion.  The  Union  commanders 
could  afford  to  lose.  They  had  unlimited  resources.  A  great  government 
and  people  were  behind  them.  The  Confederates  were  relatively  small  in 
resources.  As  the  result  of  no  one  of  their  victories  did  they  gain  ground 
that  they  could  hold  longer  than  a  few  days  or  weeks;  whereas,  —  as  this 
brief  narrative  will  show  as  conclusively  as  a  more  elaborate  history, —  they 
were  losing  ground  from  the  beginning  to  the  close  of  the  struggle. 

Among  the  greatest  losses  sustained  by  the  Confederates  in  these  battles 
near  Fredericksburg,  was  that  of  General  "  Stonewall "  Jackson.  It  is  said 
that  he  was  wounded  on  the  2d  of  May  by  the  firing  from  a  regiment  of  his 
own  troops  ;  and  that  they  mistook  him  and  his  staff  for  Union  cavalry.  His 
wounds  in  the  shoulder  and  hands  were  not  mortal  in  themselves,  but  they 
predisposed  his  system  to  pneumonia,  of  which  he  died,  at  Bowling  Green, 
on  May  loth.  General  Lee  wrote  him  a  brief  yet  beautiful  letter  on  the 
4th,  in  which  he  said  :  "  Could  I  have  directed  events,  I  should  have  chosen, 
for  the  good  of  the  country,  to  have  been  disabled  in  your  stead."  At  the 
very  moment  General  Jackson  was  shot,  a  scouting  party  of  five  soldiers,  of 
the  Fifth  regiment  of  the  New- York  Excelsior  Brigade,  were  on  the  Orange 
plank  road,  outside  the  picket  line.  It  was  a  clear  moonlight  night.  They 
saw  and  heard  Jackson's  cavalcade  approaching.  They  were  on  the  lookout 
to  ascertain  whether  the  troops  massing  in  front  (Jackson's  corps)  was  Sickles, 
with  his  two  divisions  which  had  been  cut  off,  as  stated,  by  the  break  of  the 
Eleventh  Corps.  If  Sickles  should  come  in  by  this  way,  he  would  be  taken  for 
the  enemy,  and  be  fired  upon  by  the  Union  line  of  battle,  unless  his  identity 


"  STONEWALL  "  JACKSON'S  DEATH. 


199 


should  be  ascertained.  These  scouts  have  just  heard  the  commands  given  to 
several  Confederate  regiments  by  name.  By  the  movements  ordered  they 
know  that  the  latter  are  being  massed  in  column.  At  this  moment  the 
scouts  hear  and  see  the  horsemen  approaching.  They  immediately  turn  to 
give  information  that  it  is  the  enemy  who  is  in  front.  Thereupon  a  few  shots 
are  fired  by  the  pickets  of  the  Second  New  Jersey  brigade,  on  the  left  of  the 
plank  road  and  to  the  rear  of  the  scouts.  At  the  same  moment  a  volley  is 
fired  by  the  Confederate  pickets  from  the  opposite  direction.  Some  of  the 
bullets  come  whizzing  over  the  heads  of  the  scouting  party.  One  of  the 
latter,  who  is  at  the  author's  elbow  as  he  pens  this  incident,  says  that  the 
firing  on  both  sides  was  so  nearly  simultaneous  that  it  was  impossible  to  tell 
which  side  fired  first.  Therefore,  it  is  as  reasonable  to  say  that  General 
Jackson  got  a  soldier's  mortal  wound  from  the  enemy's  line  of  battle,  as  to 
attribute  his  death  to  an  accident  of  his  own  men,  who  should  have  seen 
him  and  his  staff  in  that  clear  moonlight,  passing  out  to  reconnoiter  the 
front.  The  moment  after  this  firing  takes  place  the  Union  pickets  fall  back 
precipitately,  and  a  regular  line  of  battle  fire  is  opened  on  both  sides.  Be 
fore  the  little  party  went  out  on  the  hazardous  duty  of  reconnoitering  ap 
proaching  troops,  in  front  of  regiments  in  the  order  of  battle,  word  was 
passed  along  the  line  not  to  fire  until  they  reported  back,  or  there  was  reason 
to  believe  they  were  captured.  This  precaution  has  been  disregarded  under 
the  galling  fire  pouring  in  from  the  front.  The  scouting  party  are  thus  be 
tween  two  fires.  Which  way  would  they  flee?  They  can  lie  down  in  the 
ditch  beside  the  road  and  be  comparatively  safe.  But  delay  in  giving  word 
that  the  enemy  is  massing  for  an  assault  may  bring  great  disaster  to  the  army. 
A  dash  must  be  made  through  the  leaden  storm.  There  is  one  black  space 
in  the  blazing  line  behind  these  intrepid  soldiers.  Their  own  regiment, 
true  to  its  promise,  withholds  its  fire.  They  make  the  dash  through  the 
open  timber  for  that  dark  line.  They  gain  it  unscathed !  They  give  their 
important  information.  Hooker  masses  his  artillery  on  the  ridge  behind 
this  line.  At  two  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  again  at  daylight,  the  Con 
federates  advance  on  the  charge.  The  artillery  sweeps  their  ranks  with 
terrible  slaughter.  Jackson's  famous  corps  is  repulsed  and  almost  decimated. 
Hooker  names  these  scouts  for  decorations.  The  writer's  friend  wears  on 
his  breast  the  "  Medal  of  Honor"  for  that  night's  work. 

The  experience  of  President  Lincoln  in  the  direction  of  military  affairs  in 
Virginia  had  not  justified  him  in  departing  from  his  maxim,  that  "  a  man 
should  not  swap  horses  when  crossing  a  stream,"  and  when  the  current  is 
sweeping  him  away.  He  superseded  McClellan  in  the  summer  of  1862, 
because  he  had  failed  to  capture  Richmond  with  an  inferior  force.  He 
soon  found  out  that  he  had  made  a  bad  exchange  by  substituting  Pope  in 
the  chief  command.  He  restored  McClellan  just  in  time  to  save  the  North 
from  invasion  and  to  drive  back  the  invader.  But,  growing  impatient  of  delay, 


200  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

he  again  changed  McClellan  for  a  soldier  untried  in  great  commands.  It  is 
but  just  to  the  late  amiable  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  —  General  Burn- 
side —  to  say  that  he  reluctantly  accepted  the  chief  command.  He  admitted 
his  incapacity  to  command  so  great  an  army,  and  preferred  to  serve  under 
McClellan.  The  disaster  at  Fredericksburg  justified  his  modest  estimate  of 
his  own  abilities.  It  induced  the  President  to  exchange  again,  but  with  no  bet 
ter  success.  The  unsuccessful  results  of  the  week's  fighting  in  the  Wilderness 
and  around  Chancellorsville,  convinced  the  President  that  "Fighting  Joe 
Hooker  "  had  not  the  military  genius  which  was  to  save  the  country.  What 
now  is  the  alternative?  Another  exchange.  It  is  but  justice  to  President 
Lincoln  to  say,  however,  that  this  chronic  habit  of  changing  commanders 
with  every  change  in  the  seasons,  or  the  moon,  was  not  the  result  of  weak 
ness  of  judgment  or  whim  on  his  part.  It  arose  from  an  excessive  defer 
ence  to  popular  clamor,  expressed  by  the  newspapers  and  politicians.  His 
War  Secretary,  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  was  a  fierce  and  vindictive  man.  He  had 
his  dislikes  and  jealousies  of  every  man  of  real  talent  and  military  merit.  He 
lost  no  opportunity  for  making  them  feel  his  power.  This  man,  though  a 
secession  sympathizer  at  the  beginning  of  the  war, — as  Judge  Black  proved, 
and  as  the  author  personally  confirms, —  had  acquired,  by  dint  of  vindictive 
hatred  of  his  old  friends  and  associates,  and  by  a  degree  of  vigor  unex 
ampled  in  the  performance  of  official  duties,  a  wonderful  hold  on  the  con 
fidence  of  Northern  men,  —  and  especially  upon  those  of  extreme  views 
regarding  the  South.  He  especially  disliked  McClellan,  Grant,  and  Sherman. 
All  great  events  are  more  or  less  affected  by  such  private  hatreds  or  partialities. 

Early  in  June,  General  Lee  began  to  prepare  for  an  important  move 
ment.  Before  the  loth  of  the  month  his  forces  were  in  motion  in  the 
direction  of  the  valley  of  Virginia.  On  the  i4th,  having  passed  through 
Snicker's  Gap,  they  invested  Winchester,  which  was  held  by  General 
Milroy  with  7,000  men.  Some  resistance  was  made,  when  that  officer  called 
a  council  of  war,  which  decided  to  abandon  the  place  and  retreat  to 
Harper's  Ferry.  The  attempt  to  execute  this  movement  was  discovered  by 
the  enemy.  Most  of  the  retreating  Unionists  were  captured,  with  their 
arms  and  baggage.  Martinsburg,  a  few  miles  farther  north,  also  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  enemy  ;  after  which  they  were  free  to  send  raids  into  Mary 
land  and  Pennsylvania,  and  help  themselves  to  clothing,  horses,  and  what 
ever  they  wanted,  at  their  own  prices  in  Confederate  money.  Otherwise, 
they  behaved  with  an  exemplary  prudence  that  might  well  have  been  imi 
tated  in  many  parts  of  the  belligerent  land.  Gen.  George  G.  Meade,  on 
June  28th,  superseded  General  Hooker,  who,  totally  unexpectant  of  a  change, 
was  pushing  on  his  columns  through  Maryland  to  give  battle  to  Lee  in  the 
vicinity  of  Gettysburg. 

The  movement,  above  recorded,  led  to  the  march  of  the  Army  of  the 
Potomac  in  pursuit  of  Lee.  It  eventuated  in  the  great  battle  of  Gettysburg. 


LEE  AND  MEADE  AT  GETTYSBURG.  2OI 

This  protracted  struggle,  commencing  on  the  first  day  of  July  and  ending  on 
the  third,  was  one  of  the  most  sanguinary  of  the  war.  It  resulted  in  the  defeat 
of  the  Confederates,  with  heavy  losses  on  both  sides.  It  was  a  defeat ;  because 
it  was  a  failure  of  the  bold  and  comprehensive  purposes  of  the  Confederate 
authorities.  They  designed  the  capture  of  Washington,  Baltimore,  and 
Philadelphia,  and  other  conquests  farther  north.  In  place  of  these  results, 
which  might  have  been  fatal  to  the  cause  of  the  Union,  General  Lee,  with 
his  splendid  army,  was  fearfully  crippled.  He  was  driven  back  to  Virginia. 
General  Meade  states  his  own  losses  to  have  been  2,834  killed,  13,709 
wounded,  and  6,643  missing;  total  23,186.  On  the  31  st  of  July,  General 
Lee  said  in  his  official  report,  that  he  was  not  then  able  to  give  a  correct 
statement  of  his  casualties,  "  which  were  severe,  including  many  brave  men 
and  an  unusual  proportion  of  distinguished  and  valuable  officers." 

General  Meade,  in  his  report  dated  October  ist,  summed  up  the  results  of 
this  campaign,  in  the  defeat  of  the  enemy,  their  compulsory  evacuation  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  their  withdrawal  from  the  upper  valley  of  the 
Shenandoah,  the  capture  of  many  guns,  forty-one  standards,  13,631  prisoners, 
and  34,987  small  arms.  He  fails  to  say  how  many  of  the  enemy  were  killed 
and  wounded.  The  reports  of  the  Sanitary  Commission  show  that  7,262  of 
the  severely  wounded  were  left  on  the  field,  to  be  cared  for  by  the  Union 
forces.  All  who  could  bear  transportation  —  probably  a  greater  number  — 
were  carried  off  in  the  retreat.  It  is  said,  also,  that  the  Unionists  buried 
4,500  of  the  Confederate  dead,  and  that  the  Confederates  themselves  spent 
the  4th  in  the  same  pious  work.  At  this  rate,  their  losses  in  killed, 
wounded,  and  prisoners  must  have  amounted  to  nearly  forty  thousand.  It 
has  been  said  that  a  large  militia  force  of  Pennsylvania  and  New- York  was 
engaged  in  this  battle.  This  is  not  true.  To  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  alone 
belongs  this  splendid  victory.  Hooker  had  the  previous  winter  given  to  it 
an  unsurpassed  organization  and  unlimited  confidence ;  and  his  successor, 
General  Meade,  had  no  superior  in  generalship. 

During  the  month  of  September  there  was,  in  the  West,  a  concentration 
of  the  forces  of  both  belligerents  in  the  vicinity  of  Chattanooga.  It  became 
evident  that  a  great  battle  was  approaching.  The  Union  forces  under  the 
command  of  General  Rosecrans  held  that  town.  The  enemy  had  evacuated 
it  and  retired  to  the  mountain  fastnesses.  The  main  body  of  the  Union 
army  came  by  way  of  the  southwest,  along  the  valleys  of  Lookout  Moun 
tain,  and  the  Chickamauga,  and  other  tributaries  of  the  Tennessee  River. 
The  battle  of  Chickamauga  began  on  the  i9th  of  September.  It  was 
renewed  on  the  2oth.  It  resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the  Union  forces,  but  not 
without  inflicting  losses  on  the  victors  equal  to  those  suffered  by  the  van 
quished  ;  while  the  latter  were  permitted,  on  the  2ist,  to  retire  from  the 
field  without  serious  interruption.  "^-vloss  of  the  Unionists  in  the  two  days* 
battles  was  1,644  killed,  9,262  woun'ir^I,  and  4,945  missing  or  prisoners,  to- 

13 


202  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

gether  with  thirty-six  cannon,  8,540  small  arms,  and  other  war  material. 
General  Bragg  admitted  his  losses  to  have  been  heavy.  They  have  been 
stated  by  Union  authorities  at  18,000  men. 

In  October  following  this  defeat  of  the  Union  forces,  General  Grant  was 
appointed  to  the  chief  command  of  the  departments  of  Tennessee,  Cumber 
land,  and  Ohio,  and  General  Rosecrans  was  relieved.  Gen.  W.  T.  Sher 
man  wras  placed  in  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Tennessee,  and  General 
Thomas  in  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland. 

Now  comes  the  grand  struggle  for  the  control  of  the  railroads  which  pass 
through  Chattanooga,  and  of  the  Tennessee  River  on  which  the  town  stands, 
together  with  the  fertile  regions  to  which  they  give  access.  This  struggle  led 
to  another  great  conflict  in  the  vicinity  of  that  town.  It  is  known  as  the  battle 
of  Chattanooga.  In  this  brief  sketch  only  results  can  be  stated.  General 
Grant  had  the  powerful  aid  of  General  Sherman,  who  came  up  from  the  south 
west  in  time,  together  with  Thomas,  Hooker,  Howard,  and  other  able  offi 
cers.  General  Bragg  commanded  the  Confederates.  He  had  charged  in 
his  report  that  General  Polk  had  disobeyed  orders  at  the  battle  of  Chicka- 
mauga.  This  disobedience,  as  he  alleged,  had  prevented  the  annihilation  of 
the  Union  army.  In  consequence  of  this  grave  charge,  Polk  was  relieved 
from  command  and  arrested.  This  was  in  September.  Bragg  had  sent  Long- 
street  to  Knoxville  to  besiege  Burnside.  His  second  in  command  was  Gen 
eral  Hardee.  Grant  availed  himself  of  this  state  of  things  to  attack  the  Con 
federate  commander.  He  achieved  a  complete  victory.  General  Grant  says 
that  his  losses  in  these  battles  around  Chattanooga  were  757  killed,  4,529 
wounded,  and  330  missing ;  total,  5,616.  He  estimated  the  loss  of  the  enemy 
at  less  than  his  own,  owing  to  the  fact  that  he  was  protected  by  entrench 
ments,  while  the  Unionists  were  the  assailants.  He  says,  however,  that  the 
enemy's  losses  at  Knoxville  were  many  times  greater  than  his  own,  which 
would  make  the  aggregates  about  equal.  The  Confederates  lost,  from  Octo 
ber  20  to  December  i,  in  deserters  and  prisoners  alone,  6,142,  together 
with  forty  cannon,  2,336  rounds  of  artillery  ammunition,  6,175  stands  of 
small  arms,  with  much  other  war  material ;  but  their  greatest  loss  was  the  con 
trol  of  the  river  and  railroads,  by  which  their  resources  were  fatally  crippled, 
and  their  communications  with  the  West  were  cut  off.  General  Grant,  in  an 
address  to  the  armies  of  the  Cumberland,  the  Ohio,  and  the  Tennessee,  near  the 
close  of  the  year,  summed  up  the  results  of  the  campaign  by  telling  them  that 
in  a  short  time  they  had  recovered  from  the  control  of  the  enemy  the  Tennes 
see  River  from  Bridgeport,  near  Chattanooga,  to  Knoxville ;  that  they  had 
dislodged  him  from  his  great  stronghold  upon  Lookout  Mountain,  driven 
him  from  the  Chattanooga  valley,  wrested  from  his  grasp  the  possession  of 
Missionary  Ridge,  repelled  with  heavy  loss  his  repeated  assaults  upon 
Knoxville,  and  compelled  him  to  raif^ie  siege  there  and  to  retreat  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  state. 


LIEUTENANT-GENERAL  GRANT  IN  CHIEF  COMMAND.  203 

By  the  end  of  the  year,  great  inroads  were  made  upon  the  Confederacy. 
General  Grant  held  the  railroads  from  Chattanooga  to  Nashville,  and  from 
Memphis  and  Charleston  to  Tuscumbia  and  Florence.  The  Mississippi 
River  was  open  to  the  Gulf.  The  capital  of  Arkansas  was  in  possession  of 
the  government.  The  Confederates  were  expelled  from  Tennessee  and  Ken 
tucky.  General  Meade  confronted  Lee  at  Culpepper  Court  House.  Win 
chester,  Martinsburg,  and  Harper's  Ferry,  together  with  the  sea-ports  of  the 
Atlantic  and  Gulf  coasts,  from  Old  Point  in  Virginia  to  Texas,  were,  with 
two  or  three  exceptions,  in  possession  of  the  Union  forces.  At  the  beginning 
of  the  conflict,  all  the  territories  controlled  by  these  places,  with  their  lines  of 
communication  and  war  resources,  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Confederates.  It 
is  one  of  the  wonderful  feats  of  persistent  human  nature,  that  the  Confed 
erate  leaders  were  able  to  keep  up  the  struggle  on  such  a  gigantic  scale  as 
they  did,  after  losing  such  strategic  and  pivotal  advantages  in  locality,  prestige, 
and  power.  True,  they  could  still  draw  recruits  from  the  lost  territory  ;  but 
their  only  chance  of  obtaining  supplies  of  provisions  from  within  the  Union 
lines,  was  by  the  capture  of  baggage-trains  and  depots.  It  is  discreditable 
to  the  vigilance  of  the  Union  commanders,  that  the  Confederate  foragers 
were  so  often  successful  in  such  raids.  It  was  a  common  humorous  re 
mark,  that  the  Unionists  furnished  the  elements  of  war  for  the  Confederates. 

Many  interesting  events  of  this  year,  leading  up  to  other  great  events, 
or  ending  in  failure,  must  be  passed  over.  Of  the  latter  description  were 
the  combined  naval  and  military  operations  against  Charleston. 

Early  in  the  year  1864,  General  Sherman,  advanced  into  the  interior  of 
the  State  of  Mississippi,  as  far  as  Meridian.  He  destroyed  in  his  march 
the  military  stores  of  the  Confederates.  He  broke  up  the  railroads  more 
effectively  than  had  ever  been  done  before.  But  Gen.  W.  S.  Smith,  who 
was  to  have  formed  a  junction  with  him  at  Meridian,  failed  to  appear.  It 
turned  out  that  he  failed  to  leave  Memphis  until  about  the  time  of  Sherman's 
arrival  at  Meridian,  and  that  he  had  met  and  been  defeated  by  Forrest.  In 
consequence  of  this  mishap,  Sherman  abandoned  the  pursuit  of  the  Con 
federates.  The  latter  were  commanded  by  General  Polk,  who  retreated  south- 
eastwardly.  Sherman  then  returned  with  his  force  of  about  thirty  thousand 
men,  to  Vicksburg. 

On  the  2d  of  March,  1864,  General  Grant  was  raised  to  the  rank  of 
Lieutenant-General.  He  was  appointed  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Armies 
of  the  United  States  on  the  I4th.  His  headquarters  were  at  Washing 
ton.  The  Army  of  the  Potomac,  under  the  immediate  command  of  Gen 
eral  Meade,  had  its  headquarters  near  Culpepper  Court  House  since  Decem 
ber,  1863.  May  4th,  General  Grant  crossed  the  Rapidan  and  advanced  upon 
Lee's  lines.  At  this  time  there  was  a  concerted  movement  upon  Richmond, 
—  one  up  the  James  River,  one  up  the  Shenandoah,  and  Grant's  direct 
one.  The  object  was  to  prevent  a  concentration  of  the  Confederate  forces, 


204  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

as  had  often  happened  when  the  main  attack  had  been  made  at  one  point 
only.  Being  within  the  curved  line  of  defense,  it  was  not  difficult,  when 
a  single  point  was  assailed,  for  the  enemy  to  concentrate  his  forces  there. 
This  advantage  was  lost  when  all  points  were  assailed  at  once. 

It  is  curious  to  note  how  contending  armies  are  prone  to  gravitate  to  par 
ticular  points  for  mortal  combat.  When  duelling  was  the  fashion  at  the  capi 
tal,  the  parties  were  wont  to  meet  at  Bladensburg.  During  the  wars  between 
the  Moors  and  Spaniards,  which  lasted  seven  centuries,  most  of  the  battles 
were  fought  at  the  point  known  now  as  the  Bridge  of  Alcolea.  It  is  at  the 
mountain  gateway  between  the  plateaus  of  the  south  and  north.  When  the 
writer  was  in  Spain  there  was  a  crucial  battle  there,  almost  by  chance, 
between  the  national  forces  and  Queen  Isabella's  army,  by  which  Serrano, 
as  victor,  became  President  of  the  Junta,  and  General  Prim  minister  of  war 
of  a  temporary  republic.  Such  localities  for  battles  are  not,  in  fact,  fortuitous. 
They  depend,  as  a  New- York  colleague,  Mr.  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  once  said 
of  the  harbor  of  New-York,  not  on  man  but  on  nature  and  God :  "It  is," 
said  he  * '  the  work  of  that  same  Almighty  power  which  ordered  the  arrange 
ments  of  nature,  that  water  could  be  made  to  flow  from  the  great  lakes  to 
New-York."  The  stratifications  of  geology  and  the  upheavals  of  the  earth 
by  internal  fires,  make  the  pivots  on  which  human  skill  in  killing  our  kind 
turn,  when  arranging  strategy  for  war.  It  is  not  strange  that  in  our  Civil 
War  we  had  two  battles  in  different  years  at  Bull  Run,  two  in  the  vicinity  of 
Chattanooga,  and  three  in  the  vicinity  of  Fredericksburg.  No  sooner  had 
General  Grant,  in  May,  1864,  made  a  movement  in  the  direction  of  the 
Rapidan,  than  General  Lee  began  to  concentrate  his  forces  on  the  old  battle 
fields  of  Chancellorsville,  the  Wilderness,  and  Fredericksburg. 

On  the  5th  of  May,  1864,  Grant  began  one  of  the  most  remarkable  series 
of  great  battles  recorded  in  history.  For  ten  days  the  fighting  was  almost  in 
cessant.  The  number  of  killed  and  wounded  on  each  side  amounted  to 
twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand.  The  Union  loss  in  killed  and  wounded  was 
23,800,  and  in  prisoners,  3,900.  The  loss  of  the  Confederates  in  killed  and 
wounded  is  unknown,  but  it  must  have  been  great.  They  lost  8,000 
prisoners,  besides  stragglers.  They  held  their  own  each  day,  but  night 
by  night  they  were  gradually  drawn,  by  flanking  movements,  from  the 
ground  occupied  by  them.  Thus  they  fell  back  from  the  Rapidan  to  Spott- 
sylvania  Court  House.  In  their  fortified  position  at  this  place,  the  Confed 
erates  were  taken  by  surprise  on  the  foggy  morning  of  May  12,  by  a  dashing 
charge  of  Mott's  division  —  the  remnant  of  the  old  Third  Corps  —  of  Han 
cock's  corps,  and  driven  from  their  strong  line  of  entrenchments  with  the 
loss  of  many  prisoners.  Lee  made  several  desperate  attempts  the  same  day 
to  regain  this  position,  all  0J  w'n",c&  Y(ere  repulsed  with  terrible  slaughter  by 
Mott's  veterans. — There,  jg  now  jn  the  Vsar  Department,  at  Washington,  a 
relic  of  that  day's  fight/  _  t^e  stump  of  a  white-oak  tree,  that  was  cut  down 

7 


GRANT  AND  LEE  ENCOUNTER  EACH  OTHER.        205 

by  Union  bullets  in  front  of  an  angle  of  the  breastworks,  where  the  Confed 
erate  dead  lay  piled  in  heaps.  What  a  monument  to  desperate  valor  !  Sev 
eral  Confederate  officers  of  high  rank  were  killed  or  captured  that  day.  The 
Unionists  had  to  deplore  the  loss  of  General  Sedgwick  some  days  before. 

The  campaign  continues.  It  is  a  march  towards  Richmond  by  the  flank 
on  both  sides —  both  sides  entrenching  as  they  go.  At  length,  on  the  2oth, 
General  Grant  leaves  the  enemy  in  his  entrenchments.  He  moves  rapidly 
in  the  direction  of  Richmond,  in  the  hope  of  drawing  him  out.  He  takes 
possession  of  Milford  and  Guinea  stations  on  the  Richmond  and  Fred- 
ericksburg  Railroad, —  still  he  finds  Lee  in  his  front.  Before  the  end  of 
the  month  Grant  fights  his  way  to  the  vicinity  of  the  ground  fought 
over  two  years  before  by  McClellan,  between  the  Pamunky  and  Chicka- 
hominy  rivers,  and  makes  the  White  House,  on  the  Pamunky,  his  base  of 
supplies.  It  is  in  one  of  the  many  sharp  encounters  in  this  locality  that  the 
able  Confederate,  Gen.  J.  E.  B.  Stewart,  is  mortally  wounded.  On  the 
first  and  third  days  of  June,  severe  battles  are  fought  at  Cold  Harbor,  ten 
or  twelve  miles  northeast  of  Richmond.  In  the  first  of  these  the  Confed 
erates  are  the  assailants.  They  are  repulsed  with  heavy  loss.  In  the 
second,  General  Grant  attacks  the  Confederates,  purposing  to  drive  them 
across  the  Chickahominy.  The  enemy  is  driven  within  his  entrench 
ments,  but  no  decisive  advantage  is  gained.  The  Union  loss  was  about 
7,500  during  these  days.  The  Confederate  loss  was  probably  not  so  great. 
On  the  second  day  Lee  fought  behind  entrenchments. 

By  the  I2th  of  June,  General  Grant,  finding  it  impossible  to  dislodge 
Lee  from  his  works  on  the  Chickahominy,  determined  to  cross  to  the  south 
side  of  the  James  River.  He  then  marched  across  the  peninsula  toward 
City  Point.  Here  he  crossed  without  opposition  on  the  i5th,  as  General 
Butler  had  already  won  that  position  by  a  brilliant  dash  up  the  river.  The 
Eighteenth  Corps  embarked  on  transports  at  the  White  House.  It  was 
conveyed  down  the  York  River  and  up  the  James  to  Bermuda  Hundred, 
which  was  also  held  by  General  Butler.  This  change  of  base,  from  the 
front  of  Richmond,  unlike  that  of  General  McClellan  over  the  same 
ground  two  years  before,  was  made  almost  without  opposition.  The  lack 
of  opposition  now,  is  a  sure  proof  of  decay  in  the  vital  aggressive  powers  of 
the  Confederacy.  During  the  terrible  and  sanguinary  fighting  of  General 
Grant  on  the  north  of  Richmond,  General  Butler,  operating  from  the  Appo- 
mattox  and  the  James,  temporarily  cut  off  the  communications  of  the  Con 
federates  with  the  south,  by  destroying  the  Petersburg  and  Weldon,  and  the 
South-side  railroads.  He  also  held  Beauregard's  army  in  check  at  Peters 
burg  and  Bermuda  Hundred.  But  Petersburg  was  not  taken,  and  no  essen 
tial  damage  was  done  to  the  railroads. 

The  leading  corps  of  General  Grant's  army  cross  the  James  on  the  i4th 
of  June.  He  proceeds  to  assault  the  Confederates  in  their  works  at  Peters- 


206  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

burg.  Hard  fighting  occurs  nearly  every  day  during  the  latter  half  of 
the  month,  with  no  decisive  results,  and  with  heavy  loss  to  the  assailants. 
There  is  a  lull  in  active  operations  during  the  month  of  July,  except  in 
the  construction  of  a  mine  under  one  of  the  Confederate  fortifications,  at 
great  cost  of  labor.  This  enterprise  was  projected  by  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Pleasants,  of  Pennsylvania.  Although  it  was  successfully  executed,  and  four 
tons  of  powder  were  exploded,  destroying  the  fortification  and  opening  a 
wide  passage  into  the  Confederate  lines,  it  came  to  worse  than  nothing. 
The  plan  was  to  open  a  cannonade  along  the  whole  line,  while  the  storm 
ing  party  was  to  rush  in  when  the  mine  was  sprung,  and  before  there 
was  time  for  the  enemy  to  recover  from  the  astounding  confusion.  The 
cannonading  commenced  immediately ;  but  the  storming  party  was  prob 
ably  more  surprised  than  the  enemy.  The  able  and  courageous  commanders 
of  the  Confederates  had  re-enforcements  at  hand.  The  result  was,  that  in 
stead  of  capturing  Petersburg,  the  Unionists  lost  4,000  men  in  their  un 
successful  assault. 

Fighting  continued  during  the  summer  and  autumn.  It  was  attended  with 
varied  success,  but,  on  the  whole,  little  progress  was  made  toward  the  cap 
ture  of  the  Confederate  capital.  The  Union  losses  were  far  greater  than 
those  of  the  Confederates.  It  seemed  as  if  the  resources  of  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  were  inexhaustible,  while  those  of  the  Confederates  were  rapidly 
dwindling  away.  It  had  long  been  apparent  to  calm  observers  that  the  over 
throw  of  the  Confederacy  was  now  only  a  question  of  time.  Its  resources 
and  territory  had  grown  less  and  less  from  year  to  year,  and  from  month  to 
month  ;  and  it  was  now  manifest  that  the  end  was  near. 

General  Sherman,  in  command  of  the  combined  armies  of  the  Cumber 
land,  the  Tennessee,  and  the  Ohio,  moved  out  from  the  vicinity  of  Chat 
tanooga  on  his  Georgia  campaign,  about  May  5th.  Gen.  George  H. 
Thomas  commanded  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland,  composed  of  60,773  offi 
cers  and  men,  with  130  guns.  The  Army  of  the  Tennessee  contained  24,465 
officers  and  men,  with  ninety-six  guns.  It  was  commanded  by  General 
McPherson.  The  Army  of  the  Ohio,  composed  of  13,559  °fficers  and 
men,  with  twenty-eight  guns,  was  commanded  by  General  Schofield.  The 
force  under  General  Sherman,  therefore,  consisted  of  98,797  officers  and  men, 
with  254  cannon  ;  of  which  88,188  consisted  of  infantry,  6,149  of  cavalry,  and 
4,460  of  artillery. 

The  Confederate  army  opposed  to  Sherman  was  commanded  by  Gen. 
Joseph  E.  Johnston.  It  consisted,  on  the  ist  of  December,  1863,  as  stated 
in  Johnston's  report,  dated  Oct.  20,  1864,  of  36,826  infantry  and  artillery, 
and  5,613  cavalry ;  total,  42,439.  At  the  beginning  of  the  campaign  in 
May,  his  force  had  been  increased  by  44,900,  of  which  "  about  4,000"  con 
sisted  of  cavalry.  During  the  progress  of  the  campaign  considerable  addi 
tions  were  made  to  this  force,  so  that  when  he  turned  it  over  to  General 


SHERMAN'S  MARCH  FROM  ATLANTA  TO  THE  SEA.  207 

Hood,  on  the  zyth  of  July,  it  amounted,  in  spite  of  heavy  losses,  to  about 
41,000  infantry  and  artillery,  and  10,000  cavalry.  He  admits  a  loss  of 
"about  10,000  killed  and  wounded,  and  4,700  from  all  other  causes."  In 
his  address  to  the  army,  on  taking  leave  of  it,  he  said:  "  The  enemy 
has  never  attacked  but  to  be  repulsed  and  severely  punished  "  ;  and  yet, 
had  he  not  retreated,  —  bravely,  to  be  sure, —  before  that  enemy,  from 
post  to  post,  all  the  way  from  Dalton,  in  the  vicinity  of  Chattanooga,  to 
Atlanta?  General  Johnston  was  superseded  by  General  Hood,  on  the 
ground  that  the  former  had  disobeyed  orders  in  failing  to  attack  the 
enemy  while  the  latter  was  in  favor  of  an  aggressive  campaign.  The  aggres 
sive  policy,  however,  was  even  more  disastrous  than  the  other.  It  resulted, 
in  six  weeks,  in  the  loss  of  Atlanta,  with  many  thousand  men. 

The  Union  losses  in  killed,  wounded,  and  missing,  during  the  campaign 
from  Chattanooga  to  the  capture  of  Atlanta,  on  September  ist,  are  stated  to 
have  been  30,400.  The  Confederates,  before  evacuating,  destroyed  nearly 
all  their  immense  mass  of  military  stores ;  still,  twenty-seven  cannon,  some 
thousands  of  small  arms,  and  other  property,  were  found  secreted  by  the 
victors.  This  central  position  was  the  last  stronghold  of  the  Confederates 
in  Georgia.  Its  capture  opened  the  way  to  Savannah,  with  but  slight  oppo 
sition,  for  General  Sherman  and  his  victorious  army. 

Before  beginning  his  "  March  to  the  Sea,"  General  Sherman  decided  upon 
making  Atlanta  a  military  fortress,  and  upon  the  expulsion  of  the  whole 
population  of  that  city.  The  necessity  for  this  harsh  measure  is  not  appar 
ent  ;  but  it  was  executed  with  as  much  gentleness  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
would  admit.  The  people  were  permitted  to  go  to  their  friends  further 
south,  or  within  the  Union  lines,  as  they  might  prefer.  In  the  latter  case,  they 
were  to  have  free  transportation  ;  and  in  the  former  their  migration  was  to  be 
facilitated,  until  they  could  reach  the  Confederate  lines.  A  truce  with  General 
Hood  for  ten  days  was  agreed  upon,  while  the  involuntary  migration  of  the 
people  was  going  on.  It  is  stated  by  General  Sherman  that,  as  the  result  of 
this  military  order,  446  families  were  moved  south,  embracing  705  adults, 
860  children,  and  470  servants.  They  took  with  them  an  average  of  1,651 
pounds  of  furniture  for  each  family  !  —  all  of  which  was  transported  under 
escort,  by  order  of  the  General,  to  the  Confederate  lines,  at  a  place  called 
"  Rough  and  Ready,"  some  twenty  miles  south  of  Atlanta.  One  of  Gen 
eral  Hood's  staff",  in  a  note  to  Lieut.-Col.  Willard  Warner,  of  General  Sher 
man's  staff,  bears  testimony  of  the  uniform  courtesy  and  kindness  with 
which  he  had  executed  the  unpleasant  task  of  superintending  this  forced  re 
moval  of  the  people.  The  former  expressed  the  hope  that  he  might  some 
day  have  an  opportunity  to  reciprocate  the  kindness  of  Colonel  Warner.  Such 
instances  of  honor  and  good  faith  between  public  enemies  furnish  some 
palliation  of  the  horrors  of  war.  They  illustrate  the  remark  of  Lord  Chester 
field,  that  a  gentleman  will  perform  a  disagreeable  duty  in  a  way  to  make  the 


208  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

sufferer  from  it  his  friend,  while  another  will  make  an  enemy  in  bestowing 
a  favor. 

After  some  weeks  were  spent  by  General  Sherman  in  resting  and  recruit 
ing  his  army,  he  made  a  feint  of  pursuing  General  Hood,  who  was  moving 
northward  and  westward.  The  latter  made  several  energetic  attempts 
to  break  up  railroad  communications  between  Atlanta  and  Chattanooga. 
These  efforts  were  attended  with  some  success.  But  his  attacks  on  Ala- 
toona,  Resaca,  and  at  other  points  were  repelled  with  loss  ;  and  he  finally  re 
treated  into  northern  Alabama.  He  was  followed  by  Sherman,  not  with 
the  idea  of  overtaking,  but  with  the  hope  of  inducing  him  to  believe  that 
pursuit  was  intended,  while  Sherman's  real  purpose  was  to  move  in  the  oppo 
site  direction.  To  keep  up  the  delusion  of  Hood,  Sherman  detached  the  Fourth 
and  Twenty-second  corps,  and  sent  them  off  to  re-enforce  General  Thomas  in 
Tennessee.  —  Having  determined  to  march  to  the  sea,  and  to  subsist  on  the 
country,  Sherman  sent  back  to  Chattanooga  the  inmates  of  the  hospitals, 
and  all  stores  not  necessary  for  his  purposes.  He  became  indifferent,  also, 
to  the  preservation  of  his  railroad  connections  with  Tennessee,  and  of  Atlanta 
itself,  which  had  been  the  objective  point  of  his  spring  and  summer  cam 
paign.  The  force  with  which  General  Sherman  enters  upon  this  extraordi 
nary  campaign  consists  of  five  corps,  —  the  Fourteenth,  Fifteenth,  Sixteenth, 
Seventeenth,  and  Twentieth.  These  he  consolidates  into  four  grand  divi 
sions,  commanded,  respectively,  by  Generals  Jefferson  C.  Davis,  Osterhaus 
(in  the  absence  of  General  Logan),  Blair,  and  Slocum. 

The  writer  would  fain  pause  upon  the  last  two  names.  One  is  of  the  dead, 
the  other  of  the  living ;  both  beloved  and  honored,  for  patriotic  devotion  to 
the  Union  cause.  He  would  pause,  also,  to  say  gentlest  words  of  General 
Sherman,  the  master-mind  of  this  march  to  the  sea.  Not  because  he  appre 
ciates  the  strategical  ways  and  means  of  this  dashing  and  remarkable 
commander.  He  never  forgot  that  the  Confederates  were  his  own  people. 
The  author  of  this  book — to  the  surprise  of  its  readers,  perhaps — now 
states  that  it  was  he  who  nominated  Sherman  to  President  Lincoln  as  the 
first  choice  of  Ohio  for  a  brigadier-general,  when  that  officer  returned  from 
the  South,  where  he  had  been  teaching  in  a  military  school.  Why  Presi 
dent  Lincoln  called  the  Ohio  congressmen  together  for  the  selection  of  offi 
cers,  is  one  of  the  inexplicable  methods  of  war  by  civil  service  ;  and  how 
the  author  —  a  decided  civilian  —  made  such  a  happy  choice,  is  now  mani 
fest  as  a  case  of  intuitive  perception  of  martial  ability  and  moral  greatness. 

The  army  of  Sherman  raises  its  banners  and  moves  toward  the  sea  !  It 
is  divided  into  two  wings.  The  Fifteenth  and  Seventeenth  corps  are  under 
the  command  of  Gen.  O.  O.  Howard,  and  the  Fourteenth  and  Twentieth, 
are  under  General  Slocum.  The  army  consists  of  about  60,000  men.  It 
is  provided  with  thirty  days'  rations.  These  are  conveyed  in  2,500  wagons, 
drawn  by  six  mules  each,  or  15,000  altogether.  There  are,  besides,  600  am- 


HOOD'S  DASH  ON  NASHVILLE,  AND  DEFEAT.  209 

bulances,  each  drawn  by  two  mules,  the  cavalry,  artillery,  and  the  horses 
of  the  higher  officers.  The  soldiers  are  ordered  to  carry  two  days'  rations 
in  their  haversacks. 

Promptly  the  grand  cavalcade  moves  off  from  Atlanta  on  the  i6th  of 
November,  by  four  roads.  It  marches  at  the  rate  of  ten  to  fifteen  miles 
per  day.  The  distance  to  Savannah  is  293  miles.  It  is  expected  that 
the  army  will  arrive  there  in  about  thirty  days.  General  Sherman  is 
anxious  to  keep  the  enemy  in  doubt  as  to  his  destination.  He  indi 
cates  Augusta  as  an  objective  point.  But  this  ruse  seems  to  be  unne 
cessary,  as  no  serious  opposition  is  offered  to  his  march.  General  Hardee 
commands  the  Confederates.  Some  sharp  fighting  takes  place,  but  nothing 
deserving  the  name  of  a  great  battle.  That  officer,  with  some  20,000  men 
falls  back.  He  takes  refuge  in  Savannah.  Fort  McAllister  is  invested. 
It  is  surrendered  on  the  I3th  of  December.  There  being  but  one  outlet 
left,  there  is  imminent  danger  of  his  being  captured  with  the  city  itself.  It 
is  highly  probable  that  this  will  be  the  result,  if  General  Sherman  sends  one 
of  his  corps  to  the  opposite  bank  of  the  Savannah,  fronting  the  city.  But 
while  the  feasibility  of  the  scheme  is  under  discussion,  Hardee,  with  his 
army,  goes  out  quietly.  He  retreats  across  the  river  into  South  Carolina. 
The  evacuation  occurs  on  the  night  of  December  2Oth ;  and  being  dis 
covered  the  next  day,  General  Sherman,  on  the  22d,  marches  in.  On  that 
day  he  sends  a  dispatch  to  President  Lincoln,  tendering  him  a  Christmas 
present  of  Savannah  and  its  stores  of  cotton-bales. 

General  Hood,  having  abandoned  his  field  of  operations  in  Georgia,  in 
despair  of  successfully  opposing  the  march  of  General  Sherman,  turns  his 
attention  to  General  Thomas,  in  middle  Tennessee.  He  leaves  the  Ten 
nessee  River  on  November  2ist,  and  takes  up  his  line  of  march  for  Nash 
ville.  On  the  4th,  Forrest  destroys  an  immense  deposit  of  supplies  —  worth 
six  millions  —  at  Johnsonville,  on  the  river,  with  the  gunboats  left  for  its 
protection.  Hood,  in  his  march,  occupies  Pulaski  and  Columbia,  principal 
towns  in  that  fertile  country,  without  encountering  serious  opposition.  The 
forces  under  General  Thomas  fall  back  toward  Nashville  as  Hood  advances. 
General  Schofield,  with  15,000  men,  makes  a  stand  at  Franklin,  fifteen 
miles  south  of  Nashville,  but  finding  that  he  is  confronted  by  a  superior 
force  and  is  about  to  be  attacked  on  his  left  flank,  he  deems  it  expedient 
to  draw  back  upon  Nashville.  Hood  rashly  follows.  He  assumes  a 
position  in  front  of  Schofield,  but  at  a  distance  of  three  miles.  His  object 
is  to  send  a  force  around  to  the  north  and  west  of  Nashville.  He  does  this 
and  cuts  the  railroad  connection  with  Louisville,  and  blockades  the  river. 

On  the  I5th  of  December,  General  Thomas,  in  order  to  defeat  the  scheme 
of  Hood,  attacks  his  left  wing,  resting  on  the  river,  and  drives  him  back 
eight  miles,  capturing  two  wagon  trains,  a  thousand  prisoners,  and  sixteen 
cannon.  On  the  i6th,  the  battle  is  renewed  at  all  points,  and  the  Confed- 


2IO  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

erate  lines  are  broken  and  routed,  with  the  loss  of  thousands  of  prisoners. 
The  pursuit  is  continued  on  the  iyth  and  i8th,  with  further  losses  by  the  Con 
federates  of  prisoners,  cannon,  and  other  munitions  of  war.  A  panic  seizes 
the  Confederate  force.  It  scarcely  pauses  until  it  crosses  the  Tennessee 
River,  a  hundred  miles  south  of  Nashville.  It  is  pursued  by  only  a 
small  detachment  of  Thomas'  army.  In  his  official  report,  dated  Jan. 
20,  1865,  General  Thomas  states  that  during  the  series  of  actions  which 
took  place  betwreen  September  7th,  and  January  2oth,  he  captured  13,189 
prisoners,  including  seven  general  officers  and  1,000  others;  and  that  he 
lost  not  exceeding  10,000  men.  But  to  the  losses  of  the  enemy  should  be 
added,  sixty -four  cannon,  3,079  small  arms,  and  a  great  amount  of  other 
war  material.  During  the  same  period,  2,207  deserters  surrendered,  making 
the  loss  of  men  from  Hood's  army,  in  prisoners  and  deserters,  15,396,  besides 
the, killed  and  wounded,  which  must  have  amounted  to  several  thousand. 

The  expedition  of  General  Banks  up  the  Red  River  occurred  in  the  early 
part  of  the  year.  It  should  have  been  referred  to  on  a  prior  page.  He  left 
New  Orleans  in  March  with  10,000  men.  He  was  accompanied  by  Com 
modore  Porter  with  a  formidable  fleet  of  gunboats.  Alexandria,  Natchi- 
toches,  and  Shreveport  were  successively  captured ;  the  Confederates  under 
Gen.  Richard  Taylor,  a  son  of  ex-President  Zachary  Taylor,  falling  back 
before  the  advancing  Union  army.  But  just  above  Shreveport  the  Con 
federate  general  makes  a  stand.  Two  battles  are  fought,  the  first  at  Pleasant 
Hill,  in  which  the  victory  is  conceded  to  the  Confederates  ;  and  the  second  at 
Mansfield,  in  which  the  Union  general,  while  claiming  to  have  successfully 
repelled  the  enemy,  finds  it  necessary  to  retreat  down  the  river.  He  is  hotly 
pursued.  He  is  compelled  to  surrender  the  control  of  the  river  and  country. 
He  claims  that  he  has  inflicted  as  great  losses  as  he  has  sustained.  The 
gunboat  fleet,  or  some  of  the  largest  of  the  boats,  have  a  narrow  escape  from 
capture  or  destruction,  in  consequence  of  the  low  water  in  the  river  making  it 
impossible  for  them  to  pass  over  the  falls.  The  engineering  skill  of  Lieut 
enant-Colonel  Bailey,  a  volunteer  officer,  acting  engineer  of  the  Nineteenth 
Army  Corps,  comes  to  the  relief  of  the  naval  commander.  It  tides  him  over 
the  blockading  rafts  and  driftwood,  by  the  construction  of  a  series  of  dams. 
General  Steele,  who  had  a  considerable  force  at  Little  Rock,  was  expected  to 
co-operate  with  General  Banks,  but  he  was  detained  by  the  pressing  attentions 
of  General  Price,  the  Confederate  commander  in  that  department. 

The  capture  of  the  forts  in  Mobile  Bay  and  the  destruction  of  the  for 
midable  Confederate  iron-clad  fleet,  which  had  been  built  at  great  expense 
for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  blockade,  take  rank  among  the  important  as 
well  as  the  most  heroic  events  of  the  war.  Admiral  Farragut,  in  July,  re 
ceived  an  addition  of  four  iron-clad  monitors  to  his  wooden  fleet.  With 
the  promised  co-operation  of  a  military  force  to  be  sent  by  General  Canby, 
he  essays,  on  August  5th,  to  pass  up  the  bay  between  the  two  strong  forti- 


FARRAGUT  IN  MOBILE  BAY.  211 

fications,  Fort  Morgan  on  the  main  land  to  the  east,  and  Fort  Gaines  on 
Dauphin  Island  to  the  west.  The  deep  channel  runs  near  the  main  land  at 
this  point.  Farragut  moves  up  on  that  side.  His  four  monitors  pass  wit'uin 
two  hundred  yards  of  Fort  Morgan.  The  wooden  ships,  lashed  two  by  two 
abreast,  are  arranged  outside  of  the  line  of  monitors,  and  are  thus  protected 
from  the  guns  of  Fort  Morgan.  Fort  Gaines,  on  the  island,  is  four  miles 
away.  The  flag-ship  is  the  Hartford.  She  is  a  wooden  vessel,  and  the 
heroic  Admiral,  in  order  to  be  in  a  situation  to  view  the  whole  scene  to 
advantage,  lashes  himself  to  the  maintop. 

When  the  fleet  comes  abreast  of  the  fort,  it  is  assailed  with  great  fury  by 
the  powerful  casemated  work  ;  but  so  rapid  is  the  reply  from  the  monitors  with 
their  heavier  ordnance,  that  the  artillerists  in  the  fortifications  are  driven  from 
their  guns.  The  fleet  passes  up  with  comparatively  trifling  damage,  except 
the  loss  of  one  of  the  monitors,  which  runs  upon  a  torpedo.  But  having 
passed  this  ordeal,  the  Union  fleet  encounters  the  iron-plated  fleet  of  the 
enemy,  including  a  ram  called  the  Tennessee,  209  feet  in  length  and  48  feet 
in  breadth  of  beam.  This  powerful  engine  of  destruction  is  more  than 
a  match,  single-handed,  for  any  vessel  belonging  to  Farragut's  fleet.  But 
the  huge  ironclad  is  at  once  assailed  on  all  sides  by  the  monitors  and  the 
wooden  ships,  and  finally  succumbs  after  a  desperate  struggle.  The  other 
Confederate  vessels  are  then  either  run  down  or  taken, —  a  few  only  escap 
ing  down  the  bay.  General  Granger  arrives  on  the  4th  with  a  competent 
military  force.  He  lays  siege  to  Fort  Gaines.  The  Confederate  commander, 
Colonel  Anderson,  being  cut  off  from  the  hope  of  re-enforcement,  surrenders. 
The  commander  of  Fort  Morgan  promptly  follows  his  example.  The  Union 
forces  thus  gain  complete  command  of  Mobile  Bay  and  harbor. 

During  the  year  1864  the  navy  —  which  never  failed  to  do  its  part  under 
the  honest  administration  of  Gideon  Welles  —  rendered  invaluable  service 
to  the  country,  and  especially  to  its  commerce,  by  the  destruction  of  the 
Anglo-Confederate  privateers,  the  Alabama,  the  Florida,  and  the  Georgia. 
The  sinking  of  the  Alabama  under  the  command  of  Captain  Semmes,  off 
Cherbourg,  on  the  coast  of  France,  by  the  Kearsarge  under  Capt.  John  A. 
Winslow,  was  a  naval  achievement  which  thrilled  the  Nation.  It  reflected 
great  honor  upon  the  officers  and  men  of  the  victorious  ship.  The  Alabama 
was  the  larger  vessel  of  the  two,  and  she  was  more  heavily  armed. 

Notwithstanding  the  vigilance  of  the  Atlantic  fleet,  Wilmington,  North 
Carolina,  afforded  great  facilities  for  blockade-running.  It  became  an 
object  of  importance  to  the  government  to  close  that  port  effectually  against 
the  entrance  of  the  enemy's  vessels,  as  well  as  against  all  intercourse  with 
the  outer  world.  This  could  not  be  done  without  the  co-operation  of 
the  army.  But  the  constant  demands  for  troops  at  all  points  inland,  caused 
this  pressing  matter  to  be  neglected  until  December,  1864.  Then  a  power 
ful  fleet  of  ironclads,  under  Admiral  Porter,  accompanied  by  transports, 


212  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

with  6,500  troops,  under  Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  sailed  from  Hampton 
Roads  for  New  Inlet,  one  of  the  entrances  to  the  Cape  Fear  River.  The 
troops  were  landed  on  December  i5th,  at  a  point  where  the  Confederates 
had  constructed  a  strong  fortification,  known  as  Fort  Fisher. 

General  Butler  devised  the  plan  of  breaking  down  the  walls  of  Fort 
Fisher  by  loading  a  vessel  with  powder  and  exploding  it  within  a  few 
hundred  yards  of  that  formidable  structure.  To  this  end,  two  hundred  and 
fifteen  tons  of  powder  were  put  into  the  gunboat  Louisiana,  which  had  been 
disguised  as  a  Confederate  blockade-runner.  She  was  towed  as  near  as  prac 
ticable  to  the  shore.  The  explosion  was  terrific,  of  course,  but  the  noise 
had  less  effect  upon  the  sand-protected  walls  of  Fort  Fisher  than  the  sound  of 
the  rams'  horns  had  upon  the  stone  walls  of  Jericho.  Indeed,  nothing  was  ef 
fected  by  this  original  but  costly  device.  This  futile  attempt  was  made  on 
the  24th  of  December.  It  was  followed  up  by  a  bombardment  by  the  fleet. 
This  is  said  to  have  surpassed  everything  of  the  kind  recorded,  up  to  that 
time,  in  naval  annals.  Admiral  Porter  states  that  in  one  hour  and  fifteen 
minutes  the  fort  was  completely  silenced.  The  next  day,  three  brigades  of 
General  Butler's  force  were  landed  two  and  a  half  miles  above  the  fort,  but 
they  were  repulsed  by  the  enemy.  They  retreated  to  the  transports  ;  and 
the  General  thereupon  gave  up  the  assault  as  impracticable,  except  by  enter 
ing  upon  a  regular  siege.  Admiral  Porter  was  strongly  opposed  to  abandon 
ing  the  attack.  His  opinion  was  shared  by  the  government  and  the  country. 
The  result  was  the  supersedure  of  General  Butler  by  General  Terry,  who, 
in  command  of  8,000  men,  sailed  from  Fortress  Monroe  early  in  January. 
On  the  1 5th  of  that  month,  Fort  Fisher  was  captured,  with  2,500  men  and 
seventy-two  guns.  This  result  was  effected  by  another  tremendous  bom 
bardment  by  the  fleet,  and  a  brilliant  assault  of  Ames'  brigade,  after  a  des 
perate  conflict  within  the  works. 

General  Sherman  crossed  the  Savannah  River  on  the  6th  of  January.  He 
commenced  his  inarch  through  the  Carolinas.  In  South  Carolina  he  was 
followed  by  the  Confederate  General  Hardee,  who  had  retreated  before  him 
through  Georgia.  Charleston  was  evacuated  and  Columbia  was  occupied 
after  some  resistance.  The  latter  city  was  burned,  in  spite  of  all  efforts  to 
save  it, — burned  perhaps,  us  is  stated,  by  accident.  After  a  short  rest  at 
that  point,  General  Sherman  continues  on  his  march  into  North  Carolina. 
About  forty  miles  east  by  south  of  Raleigh,  the  capital  of  that  state,  at  Ben- 
tonville,  he  encounters  the  Confederates  under  Gen.  J.  E.  Johnston.  At 
this  place,  on  March  2d,  a  severe  battle  is  fought.  It  is  one  of  the  last  of 
the  war.  It  results  in  the  repulse  of  the  Confederates,  with  the  loss  of 
nearly  2,000  on  each  side,  in  killed  and  wounded.  Sherman  then  advances 
to  Raleigh.  He  takes  possession  of  it,  with  slight  resistance.  Johnston 
retreats  up  the  country,  and  at  Durham  opens  negotiations  for  a  surrender. 
Near  there,  on  the  i8th  of  April,  the  conditions  are  agreed  to.  Liberal 


THE  END  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY.  213 

terms  are  conceded  to  the  Confederates.  They  are  disapproved  by  the  gov 
ernment,  and  the  same  terms  granted  to  Lee  are  accepted. 

Meantime,  while  Sherman  is  pushing  north  from  Savannah,  and  as  the 
spring  approaches,  the  forces  in  Virginia  under  the  immediate  eye  of  Gen 
eral  Grant  are  gradually  closing  in  upon  his  great  antagonist,  General  Lee. 
The  railroads  leading  to  Richmond  are  cut.  The  Confederate  detachments 
and  foraging  parties  are  captured.  Stronghold  after  stronghold  is  sur 
rendered  until,  in  sheer  desperation,  the  Confederate  Congress,  forgetting 
the  original  object  of  the  war, —  which  was  to  uphold  slavery,  —  resolves  in 
favor  of  arming  the  slaves,  and  giving  freedom  to  all  who  may  thus  serve  the 
Confederacy.  The  Confederates  now  see  the  Union  lines  slowly  but  surely 
tightening  around  them,  and  that  an  effort  to  break  them  must  be  made  im 
mediately,  or  all  will  be  lost.  Accordingly,  General  Gordon,  in  command 
of  a  strong  force,  sallies  forth  and  attacks  Fort  Stedman,  near  Petersburg. 
It  is  a  strong  place,  but  the  garrison  is  small,  and  this  key  of  the  Union 
works  falls  into  his  hands.  This  was  on  the  25th  of  March.  Elated  with 
his  success,  he  assails  Fort  Hascall,  but  is  repulsed  by  Hartranft  with  great 
slaughter,  and  retreats  within  his  lines,  leaving  3,000  of  his  men  hors  de 
combat,  and  1,800  prisoners. 

General  Grant,  seeing  a  possible  union  of  the  forces  of  Lee  and  Johnston, 
determines  to  attack  the  enemy  all  along  his  lines  in  front  of  Petersburg. 
Sheridan  is  Grant's  right  arm  in  all  the  subsequent  operations.  On  the 
3ist  of  March,  a  collision  occurs  at  Hatcher's  Run.  It  is  at  first  disastrous 
to  the  Unionists,  but  re-enforcements  coming  up,  the  partial  defeat  is  turned 
into  a  victory. —  It  happened  that  the  writer  was  at  this  time  a  guest  of  his 
constituent,  General  Griffin,  of  Ohio,  and  had  then  his  first  and  only  obser 
vation  of  the  results  of  battle. —  In  this  encounter  Lee,  seeing  the  purpose 
of  the  Union  general,  becomes  the  assailant.  In  like  manner  he  attacks 
Sheridan  at  Five  Forks.  A  similar  result  to  that  of  Hatcher's  Run  follows. 
The  Union  cavalry  forces  are  driven  for  some  distance,  but  they  rally 
and,  in  turn,  repulse  the  assailants.  During  the  night,  re-enforcements  of 
infantry  come  up,  and  the  next  day,  April  ist,  the  Confederates  are  routed 
and  driven  into  their  lines  by  Sheridan.  On  April  2d,  General  Grant 
assaults  the  Confederate  works  along  the  whole  line,  with  great  fury.  He 
carries  them,  and,  at  last!  at  last!  Petersburg  and  Richmond  are  in  his 
hands !  That  day  General  Lee  dispatches  a  messenger  to  Mr.  Davis,  an 
nouncing  the  terrible  disaster  he  has  suffered,  and  informing  him  that  Rich 
mond  is  no  longer  tenable.  Mr.  Davis  is  in  church  when  the  messenger 
arrives.  The  note  is  conveyed  to  him  as  he  sits  in  his  pew.  He  quietly 
withdraws,  with  feelings  which  can  be  imagined.  Richmond  is  evacuated 
that  night,  or  before  the  day  dawns  on  the  3d.  The  archives  of  the  Con 
federacy  have  been  packed  up  for  some  time  ;  and  now  the  first  and  last  Con 
federate  President,  with  his  Cabinet,  and  the  whole  body  of  auditors,  clerks, 


214  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

and  attendants,  take  a  final  leave  of  their  capital.  They  go  off  by  the  Rich 
mond  and  Danville  Railroad  to  Greensborough,  North  Carolina,  and  thence, 
after  a  short  pause,  they  go  to  Charlotte,  in  the  same  state,  where  they  dis 
perse.  General  Lee  holds  out  a  few  days  longer,  but  on  the  9th,  he  makes 
a  final  surrender  of  the  Confederate  cause  ;  and,  as  already  stated,  nine  days 
after,  Gen.  J.  E.  Johnston  follows  his  example.  Thus  died  Secession. 

If  one  would  know  what  immense  sacrifices  were  caused  by  the  war,  let 
him  read  the  Quartermaster-General's  reports  for  that  period,  up  to  and  in 
cluding  Nov.  8,  1865.  No  figures  of  speech  can  give  an  idea  of  the  stupend 
ous  nature  of  this  great  conflict,  like  the  figures  of  arithmetic  and  the 
details  of  the  material  used  in  its  prosecution  upon  merely  one  side  of  the 
contest.  In  the  last  of  the  series  of  annual  reports  of  the  operations  of 
the  Quartermaster's  Department  of  the  army,  for  the  year  ended  June 
30,  1865,  there  is  a  total  of  nearly  five  hundred  millions,  —  $459,630,- 
905.16, —  appropriated  for  that  branch  of  the  service.  All  of  this  amount 
was  spent  up  to  the  3oth  of  June,  1865,  except  twenty-seven  millions.  This 
money  was  expended  to  provide  means  of  transportation  by  land  and  water 
for  the  troops  and  their  material  of  war.  It  furnished  the  horses  for  artil 
lery  and  cavalry,  the  horses  and  mules  of  the  wagon  trains,  provided  and  sup 
plied  tents,  camp  and  garrison  equipage,  forage,  lumber,  and  all  materials 
for  camps  and  for  the  shelter  of  the  troops.  It  built  barracks,  hospitals,  and 
storehouses,  provided  wagons  and  ambulances,  harness,  except  for  cavalry 
and  artillery  horses,  built  or  chartered  transport  ships  and  steamers,  docks 
and  wharves,  constructed  roads,  railroad  and  other  bridges,  bought  clothes 
for  the  army,  and  was  charged  generally  with  the  payment  of  all  expenses 
attending  military  operations,  not  assigned  by  law  or  regulation  to  some  other 
army  department.  That  department  transported  the  stores  of  all  other  depart 
ments  from  the  depots  to  the  camps,  upon  the  march  and  to  the  battle-field, 
until  they  were  finally  issued  to  the  troops.  By  adding  to  the  vast  expendi 
ture  of  the  Quartermaster's  Department,  that  of  the  pay,  ordnance,  subsist 
ence,  and  medical  departments,  the  reader  may  have  some  adequate  idea 
of  the  resources  which  were  drawn  upon  for  the  restoration  of  the  Union. 
These  expenditures  were  necessary  to  the  comfort,  health,  and  efficiency  of 
the  troops.  The  success  of  the  army  in  the  end,  after  four  years  of  gigantic 
struggle,  indicates  what  had  been  done  in  that  behalf  by  the  accomplished 
Quartermaster-General,  Montgomery  C.  Meigs. 

As  an  example  of  the  scientific  and  mechanical  energy  of  the  North,  take 
Atlanta  as  the  key  of  the  Confederate  defenses  in  the  last  year  of  the  war.  It 
is  secured  after  a  campaign  involving  a  line  of  operations  three  hundred  miles 
in  length,  which  is  maintained  for  months,  through  a  hostile  country,  so 
effectually  as  to  enable  an  army  of  90,000  men  with  over  40,000  animals,  to 
subsist  not  only  while  advancing,  but,  what  is  much  more  difficult,  while  lay- 


THE  QUARTERMASTER'S  ACHIEVEMENTS. 


2I5 


ing  siege  for  weeks  to  that  advanced  position,  with  a  long  line  of  communi 
cation  to  be  guarded.  In  no  other  country  were  railroads  brought  to  perform 
so  important  a  part  in  the  operations  of  war.  Never  were  performed  such 
rapid  feats  of  construction  as  those  which  illustrated  the  campaigns  in 
America.  Not  merely  in  the  reconstruction  of  bridges  which  were  dupli 
cated,  in  the  production  of  locomotives,  the  laying  of  telegraphs,  the  build 
ing  of  steamers,  the  making  of  guns,  and  in  furthering  and  consummating 
the  blockade,  but  in  a  thousand  other  ways,  did  the  North  give  evidence 
of  that  strength  against  which  the  Southern  legions  surged  in  vain. 

It  does  not  detract  from  the  chivalric  courage  of  the  Confederate  soldier, 
however  humble  his  station  or  high  his  rank,  that  he  succumbed  before  the 
vast  mechanical  forces  of  the  North.  The  South  was  not  distinguished  for 
inventive  mechanical  genius.  It  was  only' in  a  few  localities  that  she  had  the 
facilities  to  construct  what  was  indispensable  to  war.  Her  mechanical  instru 
mentalities  were  few  and  far  between,  for  the  South  was  a  country  of  planters. 
Her  ways,  one  would  have  supposed,  would  have  been  the  ways  of  pleasant 
ness  and  all  her  paths  —  of  peace.  But  there  was  a  sentiment  of  chivalry 
about  the  nature  of  her  sons  which  led  them  inconsiderately  to  dash,  Quix 
otically,  against  the  locomotive,  which  is  the  emblem  and  the  proof  of  the 
chemical  and  mechanical  forces  of  our  time.  If  the  South  at  last  lost  her 
cause,  it  was  because  she  had  never  gained  that  skill  in  invention  which  has 
no  parallel  in  the  world,  and  which  has  had  its  home  in  the  North,  and 
principally  in  the  New  England  States. 

What  can  surpass  i  ,769  miles  of  military  railways  repaired,  maintained, 
stocked,  and  operated  by  the  agents  of  but  one  of  the  many  army  departments  ? 
What  quantities  of  iron  were  needed  in  the  repair  of  so  many  miles  of  track  ; 
and  what  great  quantities  of  iron  had  been  burned  and  twisted  by  the  contend 
ing  forces.  Even  rolling-mills  were  established  by  the  Union  troops  in  such 
cities  as  Chattanooga, —  mills  capable  of  re-rolling  the  rails  which  had  been 
seemingly  destroyed,  at  the  rate  of  fifty  tons  of  railroad  iron  per  day.  Three 
hundred  and  sixty-five  locomotive  engines  and  4,203  railway  cars,  at  an  ex 
penditure  of  twenty-two  millions  of  dollars,  were  operated  by  General  Mc- 
Callum,  in  the  last  year  of  the  war.  The  number  of  army  railway  men  em 
ployed  in  April,  1865,  when  the  war  was  closing,  was  23,533.  The  military 
telegraph  lines  were  kept  up  at  an  expense  of  $75,000  a  month.  The  number 
of  miles  in  operation  during  the  last  year  of  the  war  was  8,201  on  land,  and 
121  submarine.  During  the  whole  time  of  the  war  15,000  miles  of  military 
telegraph  were  constructed  and  operated.  In  the  year  1863,  the  telegraphic 
expense  averaged  as  high  as  $38,500  per  month.  The  total  expenditure  of  the 
telegraphic  business  from  the  istof  May,  1861,  to  the  3oth  of  June,  1865,  was 
$2,655,500.  The  quantity  of  forage,  fuel,  and  regular  supplies  consumed  is 
simply  incalculable  and  stupendous  in  amount.  Years  must  intervene  be 
fore  the  claims  growing  out  of  this  enormous  consumption,  and  for  the  labor 


2l6  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

in  suppressing  the  greatest  insurgency  known  to  history,  shall  be  entirely 
ruled  out  by  a  statute  of  limitations.     Whether  in  the  field  or  at  the  depot, 
there  was  no  intermission  to  the  labor  and  responsibility  of  Montgomery  C. 
Meigs,  the  Quartermaster-General  of  the  Union  Army.     He  is  not  generally 
reckoned  among  the  heroes  of  the  war,  and  many  regard  him  as  only  a  little 
higher  than  the  Chief  Commissary,  and  perhaps  the  latter  not  much  above  the 
sutler.      But  the  record  of  merits  and  services  of  the  officers  in  this  depart 
ment  during  the  war,  in  caring  for  the  material  and  the  men,  and  the  money 
for  the  support  and  sustenance  of  the  armies  in  every  part  of  their  wonderful 
and  wide  field  of  operation,  over  the  period  of  four  years,  is  a  history  of 
faithful,  laborious,  zealous,  successful,  and   honorable  labor,  which  has  no 
parallel  in  the  annals  of  other  wars,  in  other  ages  and  other  countries. 

It  is  almost  impossible  for  human  calculation  to  estimate  even  approxi 
mately  the  waste,  losses,  and  miseries  attendant  upon  the  civil  conflict  of  which 
the  author  has  attempted  a  faint  sketch  in  this  and  the  three  preceding  chap 
ters.     These  can  be  understood  only  by  looking,  not  merely  at  the  immense 
columns  of  the  Union  army  and  its  2,800  battles,  but  at  the  immense  columns 
of  figures  which  indicate  the  immensity  of  the  expenditure.     The  number  of 
men  in  the  United  States  armies  from   1861   to  1865  was  2,859,132.     This, 
of  course,  includes  terms  of  service  as  short  as  thirty  days,  a  large  propor 
tion  of  "  three  months"  men,   and  two  years'  terms,  besides  an  immense 
number  of  veteran  re-enlistments,  after  three  years'  service.     The  amount 
of  bounties   paid   was    $285,941,036.      The    number  of  casualties    in  the 
volunteer  and  regular  armies  reported  by  the  Provost-Marshal-General  was 
61,362  killed    in   battle,  34,727  died  of  wounds,   183,287  died  of  disease, 
making  the  total  number  of  deaths  278,386.     The  total  number  of  deser 
tions  was  199,105.     These  figures  are  taken  from  the  official  report  on  the 
subject.     A  partial  statement  of  the  number  of  casualties  in  the  Confederate 
service  shows  the  number  of  deaths  from  wounds  or  disease  to  have  been 
133,821  ;  and  a  partial  statement  of  the  number  of  desertions  shows  the  total 
loss  from  that  cause  to  have  been  104,428.     The  number  of  United  States 
soldiers  captured  was  212,608,  and  the  number  of  Confederates  captured, 
476,169.      The  number  of  United  States  soldiers  paroled  in  the  field  was 
16,437,  and  the  number  of  Confederate  soldiers  paroled  in  the  field,  248,- 
599.     The  number  of  United  States  soldiers  who  died  as  prisoners  of  war 
was  29,725,  and  of  Confederates,  26,774.    A  special  report  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  to  the  United  States  Senate,  dated  June  10,  1880,  gives  an 
itemized  statement  of  the  gross  expenditures  of  the  government  from  July  i , 
1861,  to  June  30,  1879;  showing  the  expenditure  other  than  for  the  war, 
and  the  expenditure  growing  out  of  the  war. 
The  gross  expenditure  was  .....         .$6,844,571,431 

The  ordinary  expenditure  was       ......      $654,641,522 

The  war  expenditure  was,  therefore,     .....  $6,189,929,909 


ESTIMATED  ECONOMICAL  COST  OF  THE  WAR.  217 

The  aggregate,  of  course,  includes  the  public  debt,  and  interest  on  it  for 
that  period,  but  not  the  interest  paid  since  June  30,  1879.  Nor  does  it  in 
clude  the  vast  sums  paid  since  June  30,  1879,  for  pensions  and  arrears  of 
pensions,  and  for  pay  of  retired  army  and  navy  officers.  These  additional 
expenditures  will  amount  to  at  least  $800,000,000  more. 

The  average  number  of  men  in  the  United  States  service  during  the 
four  years  of  war  would  fall  but  little  below  one  million.  They  mostly  be 
longed  to  the  class  of  laborers  and  mechanics  ;  and  nearly  all  had  been  con 
tributing  to  the  common  weal  by  occupations  of  one  kind  or  another.  Their 
earnings,  in  peaceful  avocations,  would  have  averaged  $1.50  per  day,  and  for 
312  working  days,  $468,000,000,  or  $1,872,000,000,  during  their  four  years 
in  the  army. 

An  approximate  statement  of  the  cost  of  the  Civil  War  may,  therefore, 
be  given  thus : 

Expenditures  prior  to  June  30,  1879,   •  $6,189,929,909 

Interest  on  public  debt,  pensions,  etc.,  since  June  30,  1879,          800,000,000 
Producing  capacity  of  1,000,000  laborers  for  four  years,       .      1,872,000,000 

Total  expenditure  and  waste,     .          .          .          .          .  $8,861,929,909 

To  this  sum  must  be  added  the  accounts  for  the  destruction  of  property 
North  and  South,  and  for  the  producing  capacity  lost  in  the  South  of  at  least 
three-quarters  of  a  million  of  men  for  four  years.  It  will  be  safe  to  state  the 
losses  on  these  accounts  at  $2,000,000,000.  This  gives  a  grand  total  of 
national  loss,  amounting  to  $10,861,929,909!  This  estimate  leaves  out  of 
view  the  losses  of  the  white  people  of  the  South  by  the  overthrow  of  slavery, 
as  the  effect  of  abolition  was  not  to  destroy  property,  but  merely  to  transfer 
the  title  to  the  slave  and  make  him  his  own  man. 

It  has  been  thought  by  sanguine  men,  looking  for  the  dawn  of  a  better 
and  millennial  day,  that  arbitration  would  be  the  grand  factor  in  the  arrange 
ment  of  disputes  among  nations,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  the  great  wars 
have  made  the  ambitions  of  kings  and  princes  more  peaceful  and  virtuous. 
The  making  of  great  guns  which  are  outdoing  and  penetrating  the  thickest 
armor,  and  the  appliances  of  steam  and  chemistry  for  explosive  purposes, 
may  lead  to  such  a  destruction  of  human  life  and  human  property  as  to  halt 
the  movement  of  the  nations  in  their  warlike  designs.  The  refinement  of 
horrors  and  blood  may  lead  the  nations  to  peace.  But  no  element  should  be 
so  important  in  estopping  these  preparations  and  conflicts  as  the  mighty  cost 
in  money  as  well  as  of  life.  The  Austro-Prussian  war  destroyed  forty-five 
thousand  men  at  an  expense  of  three  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars  ; 
the  Italian  war  the  same  number  of  men  at  almost  the  same  cost ;  the 
Crimean  war  destroyed  seven  hundred  and  eighty-five  thousand  men  at  an 
expense  of  seventeen  hundred  millions.  The  war  which  is  approaching  in 
14 


2l8  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Europe  or  Asia,  or  both,  may,  as  some  one  has  said,  confound  all  statistics 
and  appall  all  arithmetic.  The  war  in  our  country  from  1861  to  1865  may 
yet  appear  no  larger  than  a  speck  on  the  horizon  —  no  larger,  perhaps,  than 
Herat  appears  to-day  in  Central  Asia,  around  which  are  mustering  the 
hordes  of  India  and  England,  and  of  Russia  and  her  confederate  tribes. 
When  the  war-cloud  appeared  upon  our  horizon,  in  1861,  there  were  men  — 
and  the  author  was  among  them  —  who  preferred  the  bonds  of  love  without 
the  armor  of  force ;  who  found  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  a  wisdom  be 
yond  that  of  President  or  priest.  The  author  never  went  so  far,  perhaps, 
as  Charles  Sumner,  in  his  speech  on  the  true  grandeur  of  nations,  when  he 
pronounced  all  international  war  to  be  civil  war,  and  the  partakers  in  it  to 
be  traitors  to  God  and  enemies  to  man ;  or  when  he  quoted  Cicero  to  show 
that  he  preferred  an  unjust  peace  to  a  just  war,  and  Franklin  to  show  that 
there  never  was  a  good  war  nor  a  bad  peace.  Mr.  Sumner  declared  that  in 
this  age  there  can  be  no  peace  that  is  not  honorable.  In  carrying  out  this 
comprehensive  and  Christian  thought,  the  writer  was  living  up  to  a  demo 
cratic  principle  laid  down  by  Madison  before  the  War  of  1812.  It  was  this  : 
That  war  is  only  rarely  tolerable  as  a  necessary  evil,  to  be  kept  off  as  long 
as,  and  when  it  takes  place,  to  be  closed  as  soon  as  possible. 

In  closing  this  chapter,  the  writer  would  fain  inculcate  the  teachings 
of  the  Prince  of  Peace  —  Him  who  spake  from  the  mountains  of  Judea,  as 
never  man  spake.  Nay,  not  from  the  mountains,  but  from  one  lone, 
unknown  mountain.  All  lights  are  but  subordinate  around  the  central  light 
which  came  from  the  mountain  whence  the  great  Sermon  was  spoken.  Its 
name  is  unknown  ;  its  locality  has  no  geography.  All  we  know  is,  that  it 
was  "  set  apart."  The  mountains  of  our  Scriptures  are  full  of  inspiration 
for  our  guidance.  Their  teachings  may  well  be  carried  into  our  political 
ethics. 

Along  with  these  teachings  and  to  the  same  good  end,  are  the  teachings 
of  history,  patriotism,  chivalry,  and  even  economic  selfishness.  Yet  these 
worldly  teachings  are  often  blind  guides  to  duty.  They  are  but  mole-hills 
compared  with  the  lofty  mountain  whose  spiritual  grandeur  sheds  the  light 
of  peace,  order,  and  civilization  to  a  suffering  world.  When  these  principles 
obtain  in  our  hearts,  there  will  come  a  glorious  era  for  the  world.  Then, 
the  reminders  of  our  sad  and  bloody  strife  will  not  be  in  vain,  if  they  cause 
the  Nation  to  rise  in  supernal  dignity  above  the  party  passions  of  the  day. 
Then,  that  party  which  vindicates  right  against  might,  freedom  against  force, 
popular  will  against  lust  of  power,  rest  against  unrest,  and  God's  goodness 
and  mercy  around  and  above  all,  will,  in  that  sign,  sway  and  direct  the  des 
tinies  of  America. 


CHAPTER  XL 


PERSONAL  LIBERTY  ABUSED  AND  VINDICATED. 

.A  WAR  FOR  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  UNION  —  RADICAL  OPPOSITION  —  PERSECU 
TIONS  BY  ANTI-SLAVERY  RADICALS  —  GENERAL  GRANT'S  LETTER  OF  1861  — 
HIS  DOCTRINE  OF  NON-INTERFERENCE  WITH  SLAVERY  — A  WAR  OF  SUB- 
JUGATION  —  THE  EXTREMES  SOUTH  AND  NORTH  —  PROCLAMATION  OF 
MARTIAL  LAW  IN  1861  —  ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  IN  1862  AND  AFTERWARDS  — 
HABEAS  CORPUS  SUSPENDED  —  OUTRAGEOUS  ORDERS  OF  SECRETARIES 
STANTON  AND  SE WARD —  ARRESTS  —  MARSHALS,  SPIES,  AND  COMMISSIONS 
—  STANTON  DICTATOR  —  GRAND  EFFORT  OF  DANIEL  W.  VOORHEES  IN  CON- 
GRESS  —  DARK  HOURS  FOR  THE  REPUBLIC  —  CAPITAL  FATTENING  ON  CON- 
TRACTS  AND  SPOILS,  AND  LEAGUED  WITH  FANATICS  —  GOVERNOR  SEWARD 
IN  HOME  AFFAIRS  —  PERSONAL  LIBERTY  DISCUSSED  —  BINNEY'S  PAMPH 
LETS  AND  THE  RESPONSES  —  THE  MILLIGAN  CASE  — THE  SUPREME  COURT 
AS  A  BREAKWATER  — MILLIGAN  SENTENCED  TO  DEATH  -  VALLANDIGHAM'S 
CASE  PARALLEL  — HIS  PROTEST  —  THE  TRUMBULL  LAW— GRAND  ARRAY 
OF  COUNSEL  IN  MILLIGAN  CASE— LOGIC  OF  THE  DECISION  —  THE  MRS.  SUR- 
RATT  TRAGEDY  VIOLATIVE  OF  THE  DECISION  —  GENERAL  BUTLER  DE 
NOUNCES  IT  —  MILITARY  ARRESTS  IN  CONGRESS  —  GALLANT  FIGHT  OF 
HENRY  WINTER  DAVIS  FOR  PERSONAL  LIBERTY  —  HE  SUCCEEDS —  LIBERTY 
DEATHLESS  —  MAGNA  CHARTA  —  DAVIS  ITS  CHAMPION  —  SKETCH  OF  HIS 
LIFE  AND  SERVICES  — THE  OLIVE-BRANCH  NOT  OFFERED  YET  —  LESSONS  OF 
HISTORY  SPURNED  — THE  WAR  LIKELY  TO  END  WITH  PRACTICAL  DISUN 
ION  —  THE  SECOND  DECADE  BEGINS  WITH  RECONSTRUCTION  OF  DISMANTLED 
STATES  —  HOPE  FOR  THE  PEOPLE  —  BEAUTY  FOR  ASHES. 

IN  this  chapter  will  be  presented  the  attitude  and  action  of  the  two  great 
political  parties  of  the  North  during  the  Civil  War,  in  regard  to  the 
liberty  and  rights  of  American  citizens. 
It  has  been  shown  in  preceding  chapters  that  the  war  could  have 
been  avoided  by  the  adoption  of  the  Crittenden  proposition  in  the  Thirty-sixth 
Congress.     It  was  not  out  of  any  regard  for  slavery  as  an  institution  that  the 
friends  of  peace  and  Union  offered  to  amend  the  Constitution  in  the  mode 
proposed  by  Mr.  Crittenden.     The  purpose  of  those  who  favored  such  an 
amendment  was  to  eliminate  from  national  discussion  all  questions  relating 
to  slavery.     They  desired  to  leave  that  decaying  institution  to  exhaust  its 


22O  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

vitality  in  a  natural  death.  They  were  content,  as  a  famous  Ohio  platform 
said,  to  live  in  the  hope  of  its  ultimate  extinction.  Being  incompatible  with 
the  enlightening  influences  of  a  progressive  age,  it  could  not  long  survive. 
Its  death  being  a  question  of  a  few  years,  or  at  most  a  generation,  was  it  not 
wise  statesmanship  to  seek  to  avoid  a  conflict  that  might  dismember  the 
Union  ?  Such  a  conflict  must  imbrue  the  whole  land  in  blood,  and  certainly 
maintain,  if  not  generate,  sectional  animosities  both  bitter  and  lasting. 

The  conflict  of  arms  was  far  from  being  irrepressible,  whatever  might  be 
the  character  of  the  moral  conflict  between  the  spirit  of  liberty  and  the 
spirit  of  slavery.  And  even  after  it  had  commenced,  its  continuance  was 
not,  at  any  time,  an  absolute  necessity  for  accomplishing  a  peace  with  union 

—  if  slavery  were   left   as  for  seventy-five  years  of  constitutional   govern 
ment   it   had    existed,    namely,    a   state   institution  —  a   domestic   relation. 
These  are  the  views  which  actuated  the  Democracy  of  the  North  in  accepting 
the  Crittenden  proposition.       They  sought  above  all  things  to  avert  a  war 
of  sections.     It  became  a  capital  tenet  of  Democratic  faith,  that  war  could 
be  avoided,   and,  after  the  war  came,  that  peace  and  union  were  at  all  times 
within  reach,  on  terms  of  compromise  honorable  and  equitable  to  both  sec 
tions.     It  is  in  this  light   that  the  course   of  the  Northern    Democrats  is 
to  be  judged,  preceding  and  during  the  secession  war.     They  would  shed 
no  blood  either  to  maintain  or  to  destroy  the  institution  of  slavery ;  but  all 
that  they  had  would  be  freely  given  to  maintain  the  Union,  and  the  supremacy 
of  the  Constitution   of  their   fathers.      They   ask  no  special  credit  for  de 
stroying  slavery,  —  the  war  effectually  did  that,  and  they  were  not  aloof  from 
its  perils.     They  scorn  the  charge  that  they  desired  to  maintain  it  as  an  in 
stitution.      They  wanted  slavery  to  die  in  peace,  rather  than  in  war.     The 
idea  of  a  temporary  sacrifice  to  slavery  with  a  view  of  maintaining  the  Union, 
was  always  paramount  in  the  Democratic  councils.      It  would  be  waste  and 
excess,  to  detail  the  acts  of  the  factions  which  precipitated  the  whole  people 
into  a  state  of  war.      It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  war  was  forced  upon  the 
country,  while  the  great  mass  of  the  people  desired  peace.      Is   evidence 
required  on  this  point?      Let  the  letter  of  General  Grant — just  published 

—  dated,  Galena,   April  19,   1861,    speak  the  sentiments  of  the    party   of 
which  he  then  was  a  member.      After  referring  to  the  reprehensible  con 
duct  of  the  states  in  so  prematurely  seceding,  he  says :  "In  all  this  I  can  but 
see  the  doom  of  slavery.     The  North  does  not  want,  nor  will  they  want,  to  in 
terfere  with  the  institution,  but  they  will  refuse  for  all  time  to  give  it  protection, 
unless  the  South  shall  return  soon  to   their  allegiance."     The  Democratic 
party  felt  that  each  age  would  work  out  its  own  reforms  ;  and  that  those  which 
come  according  to  general  desire  are  the  best  and  most  enduring. 

The  rising  generation  have  often  heard  it  charged  that  the  Democratic 
party  gave  its  sympathy  to  secession.  Was  there  any  justification  for  that 
charge?  Had  the  seceding  states  any  grounds  for  expecting  that  North- 


THE  POSITION  OF  NORTHERN  DEMOCRATS.  221 

ern  Democrats  would  ever  submit  to  a  dismemberment  of  the  Union? 
Let  the  response  to  the  pealing  of  Sumter's  guns  give  answer.  Were 
they  Democrats,  who  urged  the  "wayward  sisters"  to  depart  from  the 
Union?  Were  they  Democrats,  who  asserted  that  Union  with  the  South 
was  "a  covenant  with  hell?"  Were  they  Democrats,  who  called  the  flag 
of  the  Union  "a  flaunting  lie,"  and  wanted  to  tear  it  down?  Were  they 
Democrats,  who  hounded  on  the  war,  and  then  bought  southern  negroes  to 
fight  the  battles  in  which  they  would  not  risk  their  own  lives?  How 
many  regiments  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  negroes  carried  the  flag  of 
Massachusetts  in  the  fore-front  of  battle  ?  How  many  abolitionists  of  that 
state  were  hiding  from  the  draft,  or  paying  men  of  alien  birth  to  enlist  as 
their  substitutes?  It  was  such  craven  creatures  as  these,  who  charged 
Northern  Democrats  with  secession  sympathy.  Who,  in  the  North,  had  long 
been  willing  to  destroy  the  Union  ?  By  what  irony  of  events  was  it,  that 
these  creatures  —  who  were  at  all  times  more  disloyal  to  a  constitutional 
Union  than  the  most  violent  secessionists  —  wormed  themselves  and  their 
plots  into  national  affairs,  and  prolonged  a  war  in  which  they  had  no  part, 
except  to  incite  the  conflict  and  fan  the  flames  of  passion? 

There  is  no  comprehending  the  ascendency  of  the  radical  element  in  the 
conduct  of  the  "  War  for  the  Union,"  except  on  the  principle  that  in  war,  and 
especially  an  internecine  war,  the  worst  passions  obtain  the  mastery.  The 
Federal  Administration,  had  it  disregarded  the  whisperings  of  the  fanatics, 
could  have  restored  peace  to  the  land,  and  "  the  Union  as  it  was."  It  could 
have  done  this  before  a  shot  was  fired  or  a  bayonet  crossed.  Was  it  any 
wonder,  then,  that  the  Democratic  party,  which  had  sprung  to  arms  at  the  first 
call  of —  "  save  the  Union  !  "  was,  at  every  step  of  the  struggle,  outspoken  for, 
and  anxious  to  make,  peace?  Was  it  any  wonder,  that  with  peace  always 
attainable,  the  Democratic  party  opposed  every  extreme,  unnecessary  meas 
ure  of  the  radical  party,  which  was  prosecuting  the  war  on  the  false  pre 
tence  of  saving  the  Union,  while  seeking  above  all  things  to  destroy  slav 
ery,  irrespective  of  the  fate  of  the  Union  ?  Democrats  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Union  armies  were  constantly  told  that  their  party  was  disloyal  to  the 
Union.  Thousands  of  these  soldiers  were  led  to  give  credence  to  the  charge, 
because  the  army  did  not  understand,  what  the  Democratic  leaders  knew, 
namely,  that  the  war  was  prolonged  for  party  purposes.  But  the  reader 
must  see  that  it  was  the  Republican  leaders  who  were  the  Northern 
disunionists.  The  Union  armies  were  fighting  for  the  restoration  of 
Federal  authority,  while  the  Republican  leaders  were  conducting  an  aboli 
tion  crusade, —  a  war  of  conquest,  of  subjugation,  and  constitutional  amend 
ment,  by  force  and  arms.  Between  a  war  for  the  Union,  and  the  war 
as  conducted  by  a  Republican  Administration  that  was  daily  succumbing 
to  the  fanatics,  there  was  a  vast  difference.  It  is  by  the  length  of  this 
difference  that  the  present  and  future  generations  must  estimate  the  status 


222  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  the  leaders  of  the  Democratic  and  Republican  parties  during  the  Civil 
War  and  the  period  of  reconstruction  which  followed  it.  No  candid  man 
of  intelligence,  who  participated  in  or  observed  the  trying  ordeals  of  the 
struggle,  will  say  that  the  soldiers  in  the  Union  armies  would  have  fired 
a  shot,  had  they  believed  that  peace  could  have  been  restored  with  the 
Union  as  it  was,  under  a  national  pledge  not  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the 
states  or  territories.  The  men  who  wanted  to  violently  interfere  with  that 
institution  would  have  been  left  to  settle  the  abolition  question  the  best  way 
they  could,  or  else  fight  it  out  among  themselves.  To  recruit  armies  for 
such  a  contest  would  have  been  impossible. 

Having  made  this  preliminary  statement  as  explanatory  of  the  stand 
taken,  and  gallantly  maintained,  during  and  after  the  war  by  the  Democratic 
party,  in  behalf  of  the  civil  liberties  of  the  people,  the  author  will  now  pro 
ceed  to  the  subject  of  this  chapter. 

When  it  began  to  be  surmised  that  the  destruction  of  slavery  was  the 
main  object  of  the  Republican  party  in  prosecuting  the  war  against  the 
South,  the  Democratic  leaders  exposed  the  duplicity  of  that  party.  As 
long  as  it  was  a  war  for  the  Union,  all  party  issues  had  been  suspended  ; 
but  now  that  the  radical  policy  began  to  assert  itself  as  dominating  in 
the  conduct  of  the  war,  the  Democrats  feared  that  the  effect  would  be 
to  drive  the  seceded  states  into  the  attitude  of  carrying  on  a  struggle  for  the 
defense  of  constitutional  rights.  Here  was  a  predicament.  It  called  for 
grave  reflection.  There  was  abundant  evidence  of  a  desire  for  peace  in  the 
South.  The  people  of  that  section  had  been  carried  into  secession  by  sur 
prise.  They  had  cooled  down.  After  all,  was  it  true  that  the  Northern 
people  had  determined  to  invade  the  rights  of  the  Southern  States  ?  Some 
of  the  people  of  the  South  began  to  think  that  their  representatives  had  been 
too  precipitate  in  their  action.  They  had  heard  from  the  North  that  the  war 
was  for  the  restoration  of  the  Union, — with  no  other  intention  than  to  restore 
the  former  Federal  relations.  The  Republican  and  Democratic  parties  had 
both  united  in  proclaiming  that  this  was  the  one  solitary  object  of  sending 
the  national  forces  into  the  South.  In  this  condition  of  affairs  a  peace  com 
mission  could  have  settled  the  troubles  at  any  time  during  the  winter  of  1861- 
'62.  From  this  time  forward,  Democratic  patriotism  was  sorely  tried.  It  had 
to  stand  between  the  reckless  madness  of  the  Southern  leaders,  and  the  fanati 
cal  determination  of  the  radical  Republicans.  The  latter  had  determined  to 
destroy  slavery  ;  or  else  to  blast  all  hopes  of  a  restored  Union.  If  the  Demo 
crats  should  withdraw  their  support  from  the  Administration,  then,  beyond 
doubt,  the  Union  would  be  forever  gone.  As  the  lesser  evil,  they  gave  all 
their  strength  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  while  daily  and  hourly  urging 
measures  for  peace.  On  both  sides,  North  as  well  as  South,  the  further 
prosecution  of  the  war  grew  daily  less  popular.  In  the  North,  the  volun 
teers  had  to  be  rejected  by  tens  of  thousands  when  the  cry  was,  "  Fight  for 


ARBITRARY  AND  UNLAWFUL  ARRESTS.  223 

the  Union."     When  to  this  cry  was  added  the  command — "Fight  for  the 
negro,"  there  was  great  need  of  conscription. 

In  order  to  carry  on  such  a  war,  it  was  necessary  to  deceive  the  people. 
This  could  be  best  accomplished  by  incessantly  charging  that  those  who  fa 
vored  a  speedy  termination  of  the  contest  were  traitors,  and  abettors  of  rebels. 
Undoubtedly  there  were  a  few  persons  here  and  there  in  the  Northern  states, 
who  believed  in  secession,  and  who  sympathized  with  the  South ;  but  they 
had  neither  the  numerical  strength  nor  the  courage  to  endanger  or  impede, 
by  any  hostile  action,  the  success  of  the  Union  armies.  There  were  laws 
on  the  statute-book,  and  courts  to  administer  them,  for  treasonable  and  the 
like  offenses.  The  fact  that  no  case  was  prosecuted  under  these  laws  in  the 
courts  of  justice,  during  the  war,  is  the  best  proof  of  the  insignificance  of 
such  secession  sympathy.  But,  in  order  to  stir  up  the  worst  passions,  it  was 
determined  in  the  radical  councils,  to  create  an  impression  that  Democratic 
condemnation  of  the  object  for  which  the  war  was  really  being  conducted, 
was  moral  if  not  legal  treason.  In  pursuance  of  this  policy,  it  was  declared 
that  martial  law  in  the  North  had  become  a  necessity  for  the  successful  prose 
cution  of  the  war.  This  policy  was  inaugurated  almost  with  the  Adminis 
tration  itself.  It  received,  against  strenuous  Democratic  opposition,  the  sanc 
tion  of  Congress,  by  the  act  of  Aug.  6,  1861.  It  came  to  the  climax  of 
outrage  on  Sept.  24,  1862,  in  the  Presidential  proclamation,  issued  that  day, 
for  a  draft  on  the  militia  of  the  states.  Many  arbitrary  arrests  were  made 
from  the  start,  without  any  charge  of  violation  of  law.  The  decision  of  the 
Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States  denying  the  validity  of  such  arrests  had 
been  contemptuously  disregarded  as  early  as  May,  1861.  Military  com 
manders,  as  early  as  that  date,  had,  at  their  own  discretion,  proclaimed 
martial  law.  They  refused  in  the  open  circuit  of  the  Chief  Justice  to  rec 
ognize  his  writ  of  habeas  corpus!  Was  it  any  wonder,  among  a  people  so 
devoted  to  an  honest  and  effective  prosecution  of  the  war  for  the  Union  as 
those  of  the  Northern  states  were  when  Fort  Sumter  received  its  baptism  of 
fire,  that  a  draft  became  necessary  the  following  year  under  such  a  perfidious 
policy  ? 

But  the  Secretary  of  War  did  not  wait  even  for  the  formality  of  a 
Presidential  proclamation.  He  began  early  to  carry  out  the  vindictive 
policy  of  his  partisans.  Not  content  with  ordering  the  arrest  of  innocent 
citizens  by  the  military  arm,  he  issued  an  order  on  Aug.  8,  1862,  to 
"all  United  States  marshals,  and  [in  contemptuous  disregard  of  all  limits 
upon  Federal  authority]  all  superintendents  and  chiefs  of  police  of  any 
town,  city,  or  district,"  to  arrest  and  imprison  any  person  or  persons  who 
might  be  engaged,  by  any  act  of  speech  or  writing,  in  discouraging  volun 
teer  enlistments,  or  in  any  way  giving  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemy,  or  for 
any  disloyal  practice  against  the  United  States.  These  officers  were  at  lib 
erty  to  decide  for  themselves  as  to  what  was  a  u  disloyal  practice."  They 
S 


224  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

were  required  to  make  an  immediate  report  to  Major  L.  C.  Twiner,  Judge 
Advocate.  The  arrested  persons  were  to  "  be  tried  before  a  Military 
Commission."  The  expenses  of  their  arrest  and  imprisonment  were  to  be 
"certified  to  the  Chief  Clerk  of  the  War  Department  for  settlement  and 
payment."  It  had  come  to  this,  that,  in  order  to  carry  on  the  anti-slavery 
crusade,  every  man  and  woman  in  the  North,  who,  by  any  act  of  speech  or 
writing,  might  express  any  sentiment  in  condemnation  of  such  a  war,  was 
to  be  subject  to  arbitrary  arrest,  with  or  without  charge  of  any  kind,  by 
marshals,  police,  spies,  and  detectives.  They  were  to  be  tried  by  military 
commissions,  when  state  and  Federal  courts  were  everywhere  open  for  the 
administration  of  justice.  Thus  early  in  the  war,  not  only  was  the  privilege 
of  habeas  corpus  suspended  in  every  state  in  which  Federal  authority  was 
recognized,  but  trial  by  jury  was  abolished  by  the  precept  of  an  American 
Cabinet  minister.  The  Administration  had  felt  its  way  to  this  point.  The 
operation  of  the  great  writ  had  at  first  been  suspended  in  Maryland  and  the 
District  of  Columbia.  The  people  of  the  North  had  acquiesced,  —  until,  at 
last,  Mr.  Stanton  became  the  military  dictator  of  the  whole  North. 

From  this  time  onward,  the  Democratic  party  leaders  had  to  fight  the 
battle  of  civil  liberty.  Before  them  was  the  prison  with  its  shackles ! 
Nobly  and  fearlessly  they  performed  this  duty.  At  the  same  time,  they  put 
their  whole  strength  to  the  crushing  out  of  the  insurrection  that  had  given 
opportunity  to  the  party  in  power  to  carry  out  to  the  bitter  end  all  its  fanat 
ical  hates  and  schemes.  Under  this  order  of  Mr.  Stanton's,  thousands  upon 
thousands  of  as  loyal  citizens  as  ever  drew  breath  were  arrested  in  the  most 
brutal  manner,  without  charge  or  specification  of  offense.  All  the  national 
fortresses  and  military  prisons  were,  from  this  time  on,  crowded  with  citi 
zens,  who  were  denied  any  appeal  to  the  courts  of  justice,  or  even  the  tender 
mercies  of  a  military  commission.  Arrest,  confinement,  and  denial  of  justice 
was  now  the  radical  policy.  This  was  the  policy  to  overawe  those  who 
desired  the  Union  of  their  fathers.  It  was  under  these  circumstances, 
that  Mr.  Voorhees,  of  Indiana,  —  then,  as  now,  an  eloquent  tribune  of  the 
people  —  arose  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  Feb.  18,  1863,  to  de 
nounce  that  policy.  He  said,  after  discussing  the  framework  of  our  gov 
ernment  and  its  three  departments  :  "  The  present  Executive  of  this  govern 
ment  has  usurped  the  powers  of  the  legislative  and  judicial  departments  of 
the  Constitution,  to  an  extent  which  is  totally  subversive  of  republican  insti 
tutions,  and  not  to  be  borne  by  a  free  people."  Referring  to  the  proclama 
tion  above  cited,  he  said:  "  It  gave  access  to  the  vaults  of  the  prison,  but 
not  to  the  bar  of  justice.  It  is  a  part  of  the  nature  of  frail  man  to  sin  against 
laws,  both  human  and  divine  ;  but  God  Himself  secures  him  a  fair  trial  be 
fore  punishment,  and  tyrants  alone  repudiate  the  justice  of  the  Almighty. 
To  deny  to  an  accused  person  the  right  to  be  heard  in  his  own  defense,  is 
pre-eminently  the  attribute  of  the  worst  ages  of  brutal  despotism.  Condem- 


LIBERTY  DETHRONED. 


225 


nation  without  trial,  and  punishment  without  limitation,  is  the  exact  defini 
tion,  to  my  mind,  of  the  most  atrocious  tyranny  that  ever  feasted  on  the 
groans  of  the  captive,  or  banqueted  on  the  tears  of  the  widow  and  fatherless. 
And  yet,  on  this  spectacle  of  horror  and  shame,  American  citizens  have  been 
gazing  more  than  a  year  !  The  great  bulwark  which  generations  in  bloody 
toil  have  erected  against  the  wicked  exercise  of  unlawful  power,  has  been 
torn  away  with  a  parricidal  hand.  Every  citizen  in  the  Republic  —  the 
farmer  at  his  plow,  the  mechanic  in  his  shop,  the  merchant  at  his  counter ; 
every  calling  and  profession  of  life,  from  the  proud  man  in  his  mansion  to 
the  humble  one  in  his  cabin  —  all  stand  this  day  risked  and  exposed,  utterly 
and  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  one  man,  and  of  the  fawning  minions  who 
crouch  before  him  for  pay.  It  would  be  the  natural  supposition  of  every  in 
telligent  mind,  that  an  argument  to  prove  that  there  is  a  warrant  in  the  Con 
stitution  for  this  state  of  affairs  would  be  an  insult  to  the  genius  of  the 
Revolution  in  which  our  liberties  were  won,  —  an  outrage  to  the  memory  of 
the  great  dead  of  that  period,  and  a  mockery  to  the  common  sense  of  the 
world.  But  the  spirit  of  abject  servility,  which  always  invites  the  arrogant 
assumptions  of  power  and  precedes  the  downfall  of  liberty,  is  performing 
its  loathsome  office  on  every  hand.  We  hear  on  every  side  the  old  cry  of  the 
courtier  and  the  parasite.  At  every  new  aggression,  at  every  additional  out 
rage,  new  advocates  rise  up  to  defend  that  source  of  patronage,  wealth,  and 
fame  —  the  department  of  the  Executive.  Technical  and  obscure  rules, 
cunningly  devised  special  pleas,  skillful  and  deceptive  sophistry,  all  combine 
in  the  hands  of  the  supporters  of  the  Administration,  to  tear  away  from  the 
people  the  protection  of  the  laws  of  their  own  making.  Such  assistance  has 
always  waited  on  the  most  malignant  efforts  of  tyranny.  Nero  had  his  poet 
laureate,  and  Seneca  wrote  his  defense  for  the  murder  of  his  mother.  The 
present  dark  hour  affords  ample  evidence  that  human  nature  is  the  same  that 
it  was  two  thousand  years  ago." 

There  lies  upon  the  author's  table  a  volume  by  John  A.  Marshall.  It  is 
called  the  American  Bastile.  It  is  a  history  of  the  illegal  arrests  and  im 
prisonment  of  American  citizens  during  the  Civil  War.  Mr.  Marshall,  in  the 
language  of  Giusti,  writes  bitter  things,  "because  his  soul  is  bitter  for  thy 
.sake,  O  Freedom."  It  has  the  significant  motto  :  PsvsffOo  $&<;.  At  last  the 
light  dawns  !  Into  this  repertory  of  bitter  things,  we  look  ;  and  lo  !  the  con 
trast  of  the  illustrations.  On  one  page  is  the  old  Liberty  Bell,  albeit  cracked, 
but  still  in  form  and  its  legend  plain.  On  the  other  side  is  the  little  bell  of 
which  Mr.  Secretary  Seward  vaunted  when  he  said  to  Lord  Lyons,  the  Brit 
ish  Minister,  "  My  Lord,  I  can  touch  a  bell  on  my  right  hand  and  order  the 
arrest  of  a  citizen  of  Ohio.  I  can  touch  a  bell  again,  and  order  the  impris 
onment  of  a  citizen  of  New- York  ;  and  no  power  on  earth,  except  that  of  the 
President,  can  release  them.  Can  the  Queen  of  England  do  as  much?" 
Then  follows  a  list  of  over  a  hundred  of  the  victims  of  the  bastile ;  from 


\ 

I 

220  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Colonel  Lambdin  P.  Milligan  to  Francis  Key  Howard.  Among  them 
is  Edson  B.  Olds,  the  author's  predecessor  from  Ohio  in  Congress,  whose 
long  imprisonment  in  Fort  Lafayette  wras  the  special  reproach  of  the  Admin 
istration.  At  the  end  of  the  volume  is  an  engraving  of  the  key  of  the  French 
Bastile  —  the  key  which  was  presented  to  Washington  by  Lafayette.  The 
engraving  tells  the  story  in  a  symbolic  way  of  the  memorable  abuses  of 
the  American  Lettres  de  Cachet.  How  strange  that  they  should  have  been 
illustrated  in  a  Bastile  called  "  Fort  Lafayette  !  " 

It  was,  indeed,  a  dark  hour  for  the  Republic.  In  the  South  a  similar 
condition  of  affairs  existed,  but  from  a  very  different  cause.  The  more  intel 
ligent  portion  of  the  people  of  that  section  began  to  realize  that  all  their 
interests  would  have  been  safer  in  the  old  Union.  Already,  they  had  enough 
of  war  and  its  slaughters.  Pride  of  manhood  alone  sustained  their  armies. 
They  were  ready  to  abandon  the  conflict  on  any  honorable  terms.  Con 
scription  was  resisted ;  the  strength  of  the  South  was  exhausted ;  the  cause 
was  already  lost.  Desperation  alone  sustained  the  conflict,  and  that  desper 
ation  was  due  largely  to  the  implacable  hatred  of  the  ultra-secessionists  and 
the  Northern  radicals.  They  defeated  every  effort  to  tender  the  South  the 
olive-branch  of  peace  and  re-union.  The  worst  type  of  selfish  interest  gave 
overpowering  strength  to  the  excesses  of  Northern  radicalism.  The  de 
mands  for  war  material,  and  the  enormous  disbursements  of  this  period  — 
averaging  about  two  millions  of  dollars  a  day  —  gave  a  rich  harvest  to  cap 
ital,  wherever  invested.  Government  contracts  gave  fortunes  to  thousands  of 
men  who  fattened  on  the  carnage  of  war.  What  cared  they  for  the  blood 
shed,  or  the  destruction  of  sacred  constitutional  rights  !  Was  not  war  more 
profitable  to  them  than  the  richest  dividends  of  the  most  prosperous  peace? 
It  was  not  the  manufacturers,  nor  the  contractors,  nor  the  vast  array  of  civil 
retainers,  nor  their  sons  that  were  dying  on  the  battle-fields,  or  retiring  from 
bloody  conflicts  maimed  and  broken  in  health.  What  cared  these  men  and 
the  radical  conspirators  how  long  the  war  might  be  protracted.  If  their  ne 
farious  schemes  would  be  successful  in  the  end,  that  was  all  they  cared  for. 
The  natural  resources  of  the  country  were  inexhaustible.  So  was  the  sur 
plus  of  foreign  labor.  The  war  might  be  fought  until  the  rank  and  file  of 
the  American  people,  North  and  South,  had  exterminated  each  other.  The 
country  would  still  remain.  The  ill-gotten  wealth  would  remain.  The  in 
dustrial  aliens  would  come  to  occupy  the  places  of  the  dead.  The  radical 
policy  was  war !  war  !  until  the  South  should  lie  prostrate  at  the  feet  of  the 
zealots.  No  constitutional  safeguard  was  allowed  to  stand  in  the  way  of 
this  policy  of  pelf  and  extermination. 

If  there  is  one  right  of  which  the  American  citizen  has  the  most  reason 
to  be  proud,  it  is  that  of  personal  liberty.  It  includes  free  speech.  Yet 
this  was  the  very  first  right  invaded  by  the  Federal  Secretary  of  War.  In 
internal  affairs  he  was  the  government.  The  President  and  Secretary  of 


SUSPENSION  OF  HABEAS  CORPUS.  227 

State  merely  executed  his  orders.  In  the  conduct  of  our  foreign  affairs,  the 
author  has  justly  eulogized  the  administration  of  Mr.  Seward.  It  was  a 
marvel  of  astuteness  and  ability ;  but,  for  his  home  action,  there  is  not  one 
word  to  be  said  of  justification.  It  was  only  when  the  war  was  approaching 
its  end,  that  President  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Seward  evinced  a  spirit  of  regard  for 
civil  liberty.  They  then  began  to  show  the  liberalities  of  their  better  nature. 
Contrast  this  spirit  with  that  which  actuated  the  bulk  of  the  Republican 
leaders.  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  Lincoln  will  pass  for  angels  of  peace  in  the 
closing  scenes  of  the  terrible  conflict.  They  then  illustrated  the  maxim, — 
Inest  dementia  for  ti,  on  which  Grant  and  Sherman  acted. 

As  stated  by  Mr.  Voorhees,  the  suspension,  during  the  war,  of  the  privi 
leges  of  habeas  corpus,  and  the  declaration  of  martial  law  throughout  the 
Union,  were  sustained  by  technical  construction.  The  executive  powers  in 
regard  to  these  matters  were  discussed  by  the  ablest  jurists  of  the  day.  As 
a  matter  of  course  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States  gave  an 
opinion  in  harmony  with  Mr.  Stanton's  desires.  Even  that  Nestor  of  the 
American  bar,  Mr.  Horace  Binney,  of  Philadelphia,  gave  his  great  reputa 
tion  in  support  of  the  theory  that  the  President  had  a  constitutional  right  to 
suspend  the  operation  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  at  that  time.  His  views 
were  published  in  an  elaborate  pamphlet  in  December,  1861.  It  was  fol 
lowed  by  another  in  April,  1862.  These  publications  drew  out  a  most 
learned  discussion  of  the  question.  Other  distinguished  jurists  took  part, 
mostly  in  the  negative.  The  discussion  was  exhaustive.  No  one  can  read 
the  pamphlets  and  replies  without  being  convinced  that  if  ever  a  people  made  a 
greater  effort  than  those  who  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
to  preserve  to  the  citizens  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  and  security  from  arbitrary 
or  military  arrests,  history  has  failed  to  record  the  fact.  Yet,  fortified  by  the 
opinion  of  Horace  Binney,  the  radicals  proceeded  in  their  terrible  onslaughts 
upon  civil  liberty.  They  pushed  through  Congress — under  the  lash  of  party 
—  an  act  of  indemnity  for  all  violations  of  constitutional  rights  of  which  the 
Administration  was  or  might  be  guilty  during  the  war. 

It  was  not  until  December,  1866,  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  an  oppor 
tunity  to  put  the  stamp  of  infamy  on  these  high-handed  proceedings.  This 
was  done  at  that  time  in  the  celebrated  case,  —  Ex  parte  Milligan.  It  is 
reported  in  4th  Wallace,  United  States  Supreme  Court  reports.  Lambdin  P. 
Milligan  and  other  citizens  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  had  been  victims  of  one 
of  the  many  arbitrary  acts  of  the  military  satraps  who  obtained  sway  every 
where  under  the  orders  of  Secretary  Stanton.  Mr.  Milligan  was  a  peaceable 
and  respected  resident  of  the  State  of  Indiana.  On  the  5th  of  October, 
1864,  he  was  arrested  at  his  own  home.  He  had  never  been  in  the  United 
States  military  or  naval  service.  Indiana  was  then,  as  always,  a  loyal  state. 
No  state  sent  braver  regiments  or  a  larger  quota  of  her  sons  to  do  battle  for 
the  Union.  Then,  as  now,  the  great  majority  of  her  people  were  Demo- 


228  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

crats.  Most  of  her  soldiers  were  Democrats.  They  were  not  righting  to 
free  negroes.  They  were  battling  for  the  restoration  of  the  Union.  They 
fought  for  peace,  and  for  the  restoration  of  good  feeling,  North  and  South. 
They  knew  by  this  time  that,  in  effect,  they  were  fighting  for  the  negro,  but 
they  had  no  choice  left.  If  they  now  abandoned  the  field  the  Union  would 
be  lost,  so  they  fought  on.  The  South  deserved  to  lose  its  slaves,  but  it  was 
not  to  enforce  that  desert  that  the  mothers  of  Indiana  had  sent  their  sons 
to  the  field.  The  Democrats  of  Indiana  were  among  the  most  loyal  to  the 
Union  and  the  Constitution.  They  were  free  and  fearless.  They  freely  de 
nounced  the  abolition  tendencies  and  turn  that  the  war  had  taken.  They  did 
not  hide  in  caves,  nor  conspire  in  secret,  when  they  expressed  their  senti 
ments.  The  spies  and  informers  of  Mr.  Stanton  were  everywhere.  They 
swarmed  in  Indiana.  They  started  stories  of  conspiracies.  When  were 
spies  and  informers  ever  at  a  loss  for  a  story  to  please  their  employers  ?  Mr. 
Milligan  had  been  among  the  most  fearless  in  denouncing  the  tyranny  of  the 
times  and  the  tendency  of  the  Administration.  He  must,  therefore,  be  made 
a  terrible  example,  in  order  to  deter  others.  On  the  day  above  stated,  he 
was  arrested,  by  order  of  Brevet-Major-General  Hovey,  the  military  com 
mander  of  the  District  of  Indiana.  He  was  confined  in  a  military  prison  at  the 
capital  of  the  state.  Major  Burnett,  the  Judge  Advocate  of  the  Military 
Department  of  the  Northwest,  then  preferred  charges  against  the  prisoner, 
as  follows : 

1 .  Conspiracy  against  the  government  of  the  United  States. 

2.  Affording  aid  and   comfort  to   rebels  against   the  authority   of  the 
United  States. 

3.  Inciting  insurrection. 

4.  Disloyal  practices. 

5.  Violation  of  the  laws  of  war. 

These  were  elaborated  by  corresponding  specifications. 

A  military  commission  was  appointed  to  try  Mr.  Milligan  on  these 
charges.  He  was  placed  on  trial  on  the  2ist  of  the  same  month.  He 
objected  to  be  tried  before  such  a  tribunal.  He,  of  course,  denied  its  jurisdic 
tion  over  him,  as  a  citizen  of  a  state  in  which  neither  war  nor  insurrection 
existed,  and  in  which  the  civil  courts,  both  state  and  national,  were  open.  As 
a  matter  of  course,  in  those  times,  his  plea  was  at  once  overruled.  He 
was  promptly  found  guilty  of  all  the  charges.  He  was  sentenced  to  suffer 
death  by  hanging,  at  the  hands  of  the  provost-marshal.  This  sentence  hav 
ing  been  approved,  Mr.  Milligan  was  ordered  to  be  executed  on  Friday,  the 
1 9th  of  May,  1865.  It  seems  incredible  now,  that  such  an  act  could  have 
been  done,  and  the  intelligent  and  freedom-loving  North  have  submitted.  It 
seems  more  incredible  that  such  a  destruction  of  the  muniments  of  liberty 
should  have  been  attempted  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  the  Constitution 
and  its  Bill  of  Rights.  But  since  the  forced  expulsion  of  Vallandigham  out 


MR.  MILLIGAN  APPEALS  TO  THE  COURTS.  229 

of  his  own  state,  and  beyond  the  military  lines, — what  might  not  be  ex 
pected?  That  patriot's  last  words  to  his  fellow-citizens  from  a  military 
prison  at  Cincinnati,  on  May  5,  1863,  —  still  echoed  throughout  the  land : 

"  I  am  here,"  he  said,  "  in  a  military  bastile  for  no  other  offense  than  my 
political  opinions,  and  the  defense  of  them  and  of  the  rights  of  the  people  and 
of  your  constitutional  liberties.  Speeches  made  in  the  hearing  of  thousands 
of  you  in  denunciation  of  the  usurpation  of  power,  infractions  of  the  Constitu 
tion  and  laws,  and  of  military  despotism,  were  the  sole  cause  of  my  arrest  and 
imprisonment.  I  am  a  Democrat  —  for  Constitution,  for  Law,  for  the 
Union,  for  Liberty — this  is  my  only  '  crime.'  For  no  disobedience  to  the 
Constitution,  for  no  violation  of  law,  for  no  word,  sign,  or  gesture  of  sym 
pathy  with  the  men  of  the  South  who  are  for  disunion  and  Southern  inde 
pendence,  but  in  obedience  to  their  demand,  as  well  as  at  the  demand  of 
Northern  abolition  disunionists  and  traitors,  I  am  here  in  bonds  to-day. 
Meantime,  Democrats,  be  firm,  be  true  to  your  principles,  to  the  Constitu 
tion,  to  the  Union,  and  all  will  yet  be  well.  As  for  myself,  I  adhere  to 
every  principle,  and  will  make  good,  through  imprisonment  and  life  itself, 
every  pledge  and  declaration  which  I  have  ever  made,  uttered,  or  main 
tained  from  the  beginning.  To  you,  to  the  whole  people,  to  time,  I  again 
appeal.  Stand  firm  !  Falter  not  an  instant !  " 

These  heroic  utterances  were  heard  from  Maine  to  California,  and 
yet  the  baleful  work  went  on.  It  was  not  alone  the  arrest  of  such  inno 
cent  and  free-spoken  persons  wrongfully,  but  the  freedom  of  the  press  was 
violated.  Newspapers  were  stopped,  especially  at  the  East,  where  such  staid 
papers  as  the  Journal  of  Commerce,  and  such  conservative  journals  as  the 
New-York  World  were  seized  for  simply  anticipating  the  news.  Their  re 
porters  were  held  in  durance.  The  bastiles  were  crowded  with  victims,  un 
tried  and  helpless.  The  Milligan  case  was  so  atrocious  in  tyrannical  vindic- 
tiveness,  that  it  gave  hope  within  the  crowded  bastiles.  It  became  the  lead 
ing  case  for  settling  all  questions  of  military  jurisdiction.  On  the  loth  of 
October,  1864,  Mr.  Milligan  filed  a  petition  to  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  District  of  Indiana.  He  presented  the  facts  of  his  case,  and 
sustained  them  by  documentary  evidence.  The  petition  further  set  forth 
that  while  held  in  the  manner  stated,  and  for  more  than  twenty  days  after  his 
arrest,  a  grand  jury  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  was  convened  at 
Indianapolis.  It  had  been  duly  impaneled,  charged,  and  sworn.  It  had  held 
its  sittings,  and  finally  adjourned  without  having  found  any  indictment  or 
presentment  against  him.  The  prayer  was  that  under  the  act  of  Congress  of 
March  3,  1863,  known  as  the  Trumbull  bill  (the  same  which  the  writer  had 
invoked  in  Vallandigham's  case),  the  petitioner  might  be  brought  before 
the  United  States  Court,  there  to  be  proceeded  against  according  to  the  law 
of  the  land,  or  discharged  from  custody  altogether.  This  act  of  Congress 
authorized  the  President  to  suspend  during  the  rebellion  the  writ  of  habeas 


230  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

corpus  throughout  the  United  States,  but  it  did  not  attempt  to  authorize  a 
declaration  of  martial  law,  under  which  alone  a  civilian  could  be  tried  by  a 
court  martial  or  military  commission.  The  most  that  a  subservient  Con 
gress  dared  to  do  by  that  act,  was  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  habeas  corpus, 
for  a  limited  time,  in  cases  of  arbitrary  arrest.  The  act  required  that  lists  of 
all  parties  so  arrested  should  be  furnished  to  the  judges  of  the  United  States 
Circuit  and  District  courts  of  the  district  in  which  the  prisoners  were  held. 
These  lists  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  grand  jury,  that  they  might  inquire 
into  the  charges  made.  If  that  body  terminated  its  session  without  proceed 
ing  by  indictment  or  otherwise  against  any  prisoner  named  in  the  list,  it  was 
made  the  duty  of  the  judge  of  the  court  to  order  the  prisoner  to  be  brought 
before  him  and  to  discharge  him  from  custody. 

At  the  hearing  of  the  Milligan  petition,  the  United  States  being  rep 
resented  by  its  District  Attorney,  the  judges  of  the  Circuit  Court  divided  in 
opinion  with  a  view  of  sending  the  case  at  once  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States.  The  main  question  of  division  was,  in  respect  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  military  court.  When  the  case  reached  the  Supreme 
Court,  Messrs.  Joseph  E.  McDonald,  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  James  A.  Gar- 
field,  and  David  Dudley  Field  appeared  for  the  petitioner.  This  was  a 
splendid  array  of  counsel  in  defense  of  Magna  Charta  and  its  muniments. 
Attorney-General  Speed,  ex- Attorney  General  Stanbery,  and  Mr.  Benjamin 
F.  Butler  appeared  for  the  United  States.  Will  it  be  believed,  that  in  this 
case  of  life  and  death,  in  which  the  life  and  liberty  of  every  American  citi 
zen  lay  trembling  in  the  scale  of  Justice, —  will  it  be  believed,  that  in  such 
a  case  the  counsel  of  this  great  government  of  the  people  made  a  strenuous 
effort  to  throw  out  the  petition,  on  the  technical  ground  that  the  case  was  not 
one  within  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  cause,"  in  the  act  of  April  29,  1802, 
which  provides  for  a  certification  of  disagreeing  opinions  of  judges  of  the 
Circuit  courts,  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States!  Will  it  be 
credited  that  the  further  ground  was  assumed,  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  should  infer  that  Milligan  had  already  been  executed  by 
order  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  !  It  now  appeared  that  in  May, 
1865,  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  approved  the  sentence  of  the 
military  commission,  and  that  the  Secretary  of  War  had  directed  that  it  should 
"be  carried  into  execution  without  delay."  This  was  at  the  December 
term,  1865.  The  war  was  over,  but  the  principles  of  liberty  remained  for 
inquisition,  stern  and  pitiless.  All  the  light  was  thrown  upon  these  and 
other  more  substantial  points  by  the  galaxy  of  legal  luminaries  who  were 
engaged  in  the  argumentation.  They  had  in  their  hands  the  exhaustive  re 
searches  of  all  the  learned  jurists  who  had  examined  the  questions  of  habeas 
corpus  and  martial  law.  The  elaborate  discussions  on  Mr,  Binney's  pam 
phlets  were  published,  as  stated,  in  1861  and  1862.  Never  had  the  question  of 
personal  liberty  been  so  thoroughly  discussed,  from  the  time  of  Magna  Charta 


MARTIAL  LAW  UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  331 

down.  No  court  had  ever  before  received  such  aid  in  its  elucidation.  What 
was  the  result?  How  could  it  be  otherwise  than  that  at  that  term  Mr.  Mil- 
ligan  was  ordered  to  be  released  from  custody?  At  the  following  term,  Mr. 
Justice  Davis  delivered  the  well  matured  opinion  of  the  Court.  It  amply 
vindicated  the  conduct  of  the  Democratic  members  and  Senators  who 
throughout  the  war  had  denounced  the  arbitrary  acts  of  the  Administra 
tion  and  its  supporters,  as  being  subversive  of  every  sacred  constitutional 
right,  and  destructive  of  every  principle  of  civil  liberty  which  the  state 
and  Federal  governments  were  founded  to  preserve  and  inaintain.  This 
discussion  seemed  to  add  new  splendor  to  the  calm  and  steady  effulgence  of 
a  court  which  was  constituted  to  be  above  the  wrangles  of  faction  and  the 
prejudices  of  party.  It  revealed  a  splendor  not  altogether  lost  in  the  con 
tamination  of  that  fallible  judicial  reason  which  a  decade  afterwards  gave  its 
sanction  to  the  great  outrage  of  the  Electoral  Count. 

There  had  been  much  discussion  as  to  whether  the  Executive  or  the  Con 
gress  had  the  power  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus; 
but  that  was  a  question  of  little  importance  while  a  radical  Congress  was  urg 
ing  on  the  Executive  to  the  most  ultra  acts  of  despotism.  As  a  constitutional 
question,  it  is  not  yet  settled.  There  have  been  powerful  arguments  by  great 
lawyers  in  support  of  each  side  of  the  question.  It  is  a  reasonable  inference, 
that  if  a  time  shall  ever  come  again  in  which  the  privileges  of  the  writ  are 
suspended,  there  will  be  the  same  partisan  accord  between  the  legislative 
and  executive  branches  of  the  government,  as  there  was  during  the  past 
period  of  war  and  turmoil.  But  the  decision  in  the  Milligan  case  has  set 
tled,  for  all  time,  that  neither  the  President,  nor  Congress,  nor  the  Judiciary 
can,  rightfully,  disturb  any  one  of  the  safeguards  of  civil  liberty  incorporated 
into  the  Constitution,  except  in  so  far  as  the  power  is  given  to  suspend  the 
privilege  of  habeas  corpus  in  time  of  insurrection  or  invasion,  when  the 
public  safety  demands  that  extreme  measure.  The  logic  of  the  decision  is, 
that  in  such  case  the  parties  arrested  are  to  be  brought  before  the  civil 
courts  at  the  earliest  moment  consistent  with  the  public  safety.  For,  it  is 
only  at  the  seat  of  war  or  insurrection  that  martial  law  can  exist.  For,  as 
the  court  decided :  A  citizen  not  connected  with  the  military  service,  and 
resident  in  a  state  where  the  courts  are  open  and  in  the  proper  exercise  of 
their  jurisdiction,  cannot,  even  when  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  is  suspended,  be  tried,  convicted,  or  sentenced,  otherwise  than  by 
the  ordinary  courts  of  law.  The  Supreme  Court  hold  that  the  constitu 
tional  guaranty  of  trial  by  jury  was  intended  as  well  for  a  state  of  war  as 
in  time  of  peace,  and  that  it  is  equally  binding  on  the  people  and  the  Fed 
eral  authorities  at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances.  Chief  Justice 
Chase  and  Associate  Justices  Wayne,  Swayne,  and  Miller  concurred  in  the 
decision  of  the  Court.  They,  however,  filed  an  opinion  presenting  their 
view  that  martial  law  might,  in  cases  "  of  justifying  peril  ...  in 


232  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

times  of  insurrection  or  invasion,  or  of  civil  or  foreign  wars, "  be  called 
into  action  by  Congress  or  by  the  President  in  recess,  when  the  action 
of  Congress  cannot  be  invited  "within  districts  or  localities  where  ordinary 
law  no  longer  adequately  secures  public  safety  and  private  rights."  But 
the  decision  of  the  Court  contains  no  such  doctrine.  It  is  positive  in 
the  assertion  that  martial  law  cannot  exist  over  the  citizen  in  a  state  or 
locality,  even  in  time  of  war,  where  the  civil  courts  are  open  and  in  the 
exercise  of  their  jurisdiction. 

In  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  the  capital  of  the  country,  under  the 
shadow  of  the  Supreme  Judiciary,  while  all  the  local  courts  were  open,  a 
fearful  tragedy  was  being  enacted,  a  few  months  after  the  Supreme  Court 
had  discharged  Mr.  Milligan  from  the  death  to  which  he  had  been  con 
demned.  It  will  ever  remain  a  dark  spot  on  the  fame  of  the  Nation,  that 
this  tragedy  of  martial  violence  was  enacted  after  every  vestige  of  war 
and  insurrection  had  disappeared.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  it  was  the  exe 
cution  of  Mrs.  Surratt,  under  the  judgment  of  a  military  commission,  and 
outside  of  the  courts  which  alone  had  jurisdiction  then  and  there  over  life 
and  liberty.  Even  that  incarnate  spirit  of  war  and  jurisprudence,  General 
Butler,  who  had  so  strenuously  contended  for  the  legality  of  martial  rule  in 
Indiana  in  1864,  denounced  its  operation  in  the  District  of  Columbia 
in  1865.  "  It  was,"  said  he,  u  judicial  murder."  The  members  of  the  military 
commission  that  tried  the  parties  charged  with  complicity  in  the  assassina 
tion  of  President  Lincoln,  were  murderers  in  the  sight  of  the  law !  To  this 
crowning  infamy  did  the  passions  of  war  and  radical  hate,  and  a  reckless 
contempt  of  the  sacred  guaranties  of  the  Constitution  bring  the  Nat;on. 

In  arguing  for  the  petitioner  in  Ex-parte  Milligan,  General  Garfield,  then 
a  Republican  member  of  Congress,  said : 

"Near  the  close  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  when  the  miscella 
neous  appropriation  bill,  which  authorized  the  disbursement  of  several  mil 
lions  of  dollars  for  the  civil  expenditures  of  the  government,  was  under  dis 
cussion,  the  House  of  Representatives,  having  observed  with  alarm  the 
growing  tendency  to  break  down  the  barriers  of  law,  and  desiring  to  pro 
tect  the  rights  of  citizens  as  well  as  to  preserve  the  Union,  added  to  the 
appropriation  bill  the  following  section  :  *  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  no 
person  shall  be  tried  by  court-martial  or  military  commission  in  any  State  or 
Territory  where  the  courts  of  the  United  States  are  open,  except  persons 
actually  mustered,  or  commissioned,  or  appointed  in  the  military  or  naval 
service  of  the  United  States,  or  rebel  enemies  charged  with  being  spies.'" 
This  section  was  merely  the  assertion  of  the  law  of  the  land  from  the  found 
ation  of  the  Union  down.  The  Senate  acknowledged  its  justice ;  yet  they 
struck  out  the  section.  The  bill  came  back  from  that  body.  Important  as 
it  was,  the  bill  failed  in  the  House,  notwithstanding  all  the  radical  efforts 


•  'I  /,„(>< 


MILITARY  GOVERNORS 


THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  PROTESTS.        233 

up  to  the  last  moment  of  the  session,  to  pass  it  without  that  section. 
44 The  record  of  its  failure,"  said  General  Garfield,  "is  an  emphatic  declara 
tion  that  the  House  of  Representatives  have  never  consented  to  the  estab 
lishment  of  any  tribunals,  except  those  authorized  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  the  laws  of  Congress."  But  all  the  same,  the  sentences 
of  the  Washington  Military  Commission  were  carried  out  on  the  7th  of 
July  following,  while  the  courts  were  open,  and  on  the  day  that  a  judge 
had  returned  to  him  his  writ  of  habeas  corpus  with  a  denial  of  its  effect. 

During  the  second  session  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  the  question 
of  military  incarcerations  came  up  in  various  forms.  It  began  with  Mr. 
Ganson,  of  New-York.  He  offers  a  resolution  directing  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs  to  examine  into  the  matter,  and  make  a  general  jail  de 
livery  of  the  Old  Capitol  and  Carroll  prisons.  This  resolution  passes  with 
out  discussion,  on  the  i8th  of  January,  1865.  Its  passage  is  a  surprise. 
At  once,  Thaddeus  Stevens  moves  to  reconsider.  A  debate  springs  up. 
Mr.  Ganson  gives  the  instance  which  provokes  his  resolutions.  The  writer, 
in  a  speech,  asks  why  the  Trumbull  law  had  not  been  executed,  in  the 
Vallandigham  and  other  cases.  There  are  other  cases,  as  he  informs  the 
House,  in  which  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  some  peculiar  "  higher 
law"  unknown  to  our  statutes,  has,  for  purposes  connected  with  the  revenue, 
or  to  protect  the  issue  of  greenbacks  or  shinplasters  against  counterfeiting, 
caused  persons  to  be  arrested  by  the  military  power. 

"There  are  now  men  in  the  Capitol  Prison,"  said  the  author,  then  a 
debater,  "  almost  within  the  sound  of  the  voice  of  at  least  some  of  the 
members  of  this  House,  who  are  kept  there  month  after  month  on  the  mere 
order  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  on  the  charge  of  forgery.  Appli 
cations  have  been  made  by  their  friends  again  and  again  to  have  their  per 
sons  removed  to  the  proper  jurisdictions  in  the  states  and  districts,  where 
the  law  is  unimpeded  by  the  military  authority,  and  yet  no  attention  has  been 
paid  to  the  request.  They  still  remain  there.  There  is  a  case  from  my  own 
district  of  an  old  man  who  has  been  suspected  of  counterfeiting.  He  could 
be  released  at  any  moment  by  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury.  Is  there  no 
relief  for  these  abuses  ?  Shall  we  not  be  permitted  to  inquire  about  them 
with  a  view  to  future  legislation  ?  "  Other  members  instance  case  after  case. 
Then  Henry  Winter  Davis  takes  the  floor.  He  places  the  matter  on  the 
highest  ground.  This  is  his  first  but  not  his  last  protest.  He  demands  that 
the  committee  should  examine  the  facts  and  spread  them  before  the  Ameri 
can  people,  and  then  let  them  say  whether  there  exists  any  law  upon  the 
statute-book  of  the  United  States  that  authorizes  the  confinement  of  any 
American  citizen  not  in  the  military  service,  in  a  loyal  state,  upon  the  judg 
ment  of  a  military  commission,  or,  without  judicial  sanction,  at  the  pleasure 
of  subordinate  officers  of  the  government,  or  even  by  the  order  of  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States. 

15 


234  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

This  is  bold  ground.  It  is  worthy  of  the  parliamentary  heroism  in  the 
time  of  the  Stuarts  and  their  prerogative.  It  is  audacious,  especially  for  a 
member  of  the  dominant  and  arrogant  party.  General  Garfield  raises  his 
voice  also  in  indignant  remonstrance.  He,  too,  is  hailed  as  the  friend  of  civil 
liberty.  It  is  vindicated  by  nearly  a  unanimous  vote  —  136  to  5.  The  debate 
on  this  theme  took  a  more  significant  shape  at  the  ending  of  the  session. 
Henry  Winter  Davis  rose  again  to  the  height  of  a  grand  argument  in  favor 
of  "  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  his  personal  liberty."  It  was  he  who 
offered  the  section  cited  by  Mr.  Garfield  in  the  Milligan  case  as  an  amend 
ment  declaratory  of  our  Bill  of  Rights.  He  held  that  on  it  depended  the 
very  endurance  of  republican  institutions.  When  the  bill  came  back  from  the 
Senate  without  that  section,  he  said  that  no  money  should  be  appropriated 
with  his  consent,  as  the  expense  of  so  grave  a  reflection  upon  the  funda 
mental  principles  of  the  government.  This  was  the  climax  of  a  long  debate. 
It  happened  not  a  half-hour  before  the  death  of  that  Congress.  The  wildest 
passions  were  rife.  The  bill  failed.  Henry  Winter  Davis  scorned  to  yield, 
even  for  the  passage  of  some  charities  in  it.  "I  am  determined,"  said  he, 
"  that  not  one  item  of  this  bill  shall  pass  without  the  whole  of  it."  He  re 
affirmed  the  facts  herein  stated.  The  bill  had  been  passed,  as  he  showed, 
to  stop  these  outrageous  arrests.  To  use  his  own  trope, — he  would  allow 
the  bill  to  stand  in  the  records  like  a  broken  dike,  in  the  midst  of  the  rising 
flood  of  lawless  power.  It  would  show  to  future  generations  how  high  the 
flood  of  lawless  power  had  risen  in  only  three  years  of  civil  war.  It  was  an 
awakening  to  those  who  were  then  with  us.  Now,  exclaimed  this  gifted 
Maryland  orator, —  who  reproduced  the  elegance  of  Pinckney,  with  the 
cogency  of  Wirt:  u  The  conference  committee  on  the  part  of  the  House 
have  come  to  the  determination,  so  far  as  the  constitutional  privileges  and 
prerogatives  of  this  House  will  enable  them  to  accomplish  the  result,  that 
this  bill  shall  not  become  a  law  if  these  words  do  not  stand  as  part  of  it  — 
the  affirmation  by  the  representatives  of  the  states  and  of  the  people  of  the 
inalienable  birthright  of  every  American  citizen  ;  and  on  that  question  they 
appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  to  the  judgment  of  the  American 
people."  Amidst  the  wildest  applause,  the  three  years  of  arbitrary  arrogance 
and  flagrant  violation  of  our  Magna  Charta  was  buried  beneath  the  repro 
bation  and  scorn  of  the  American  House  of  Representatives  !  What  a  tri 
umph  an  earnest,  liberty-loving  minority  may  achieve,  if  bravely  led  and 
inspired  with  a  profound  and  intelligent  love  of  liberty.  A  dwarf  behind  an 
engine  may  remove  mountains.  The  closing  hours  of  the  last  Congress  of  the 
war  lifted  aloft  a  standard,  with  a  legend  worthy  of  the  great  liberators  of  man 
kind  who  have  contended  for  human  rights  established  by  written  codes. 
Many  hundred  years  ago,  the  Goths  brought  their  fueros,  or  bills  of  right, 
from  the  cold  forests  of  the  North  to  the  sunny  plains  and  rugged  mountains 
of  the  old  granary  of  the  Roman  world,  Algiers.  The  spirit  of  Tell  and 


MAGNA  CHART  A.  235 

Liberty  still  remains  as  a  monument  through  a  thousand  of  years  of  Swiss 
republican  existence.  The  Sierras  of  Spain  still  echo  the  words  of  the 
patriot  Riego.  His  hymn  is  the  Marseillaise  of  the  Peninsula.  After  he 
was  hunted,  long  after  he  had  saved  constitutional  liberty  and  favored 
amnesty  for  all,  —  he  gave  to  the  world  the  noblest  exemplar  of  patriotism 
since  the  days  of  Brutus. 

The  traveler  sometimes  visits  an  island  meadow  in  the  River  Thames, 
near  Windsor,  now  used  as  a  race  course.  It  is  known  as  Runnymede. 
The  traveler  does  not  go  there  to  see  the  racing,  but  because  that  meadow 
marks  an  era  in  the  progress  of  human  freedom.  There,  666  years  ago,  on 
the  morning  of  the  1 2th  of  August,  the  iron-clad  barons  met  King  John. 
They  wrested  from  him  the  same  rights  which  were  violated  by  the  Federal 
Administration  and  ostracized  by  the  Indemnity  bill  of  Congress.  These 
rights  were  written  in  the  Latin  of  that  day,  "  Nullus  liber  homo  captatur." 
Dead  language,  but  vital  with  liberty  —  words  which  Chatham  said  were 
worth  all  the  classics :  "  No  free  man  shall  be  arrested  or  imprisoned  or 
deprived  of  his  own  free  household,  or  of  his  liberties,  or  of  his  own  free 
customs,  or  outlawed,  or  banished,  or  injured  in  any  manner,  nor  will  we 
pass  sentence  upon  him,  nor  send  trial  upon  him,  unless  by  the  legal  judgment 
of  his  peers  or  by  the  law  of  the  land/'  This  was^the  germ  of  our  civil 
freedom,  which  men  in  the  passions  of  war  endeavored  to  uproot  after  it 
had  grown  from  the  acorn  to  the  oak  !  Judge  Thomas,  of  Massachusetts, 
who  was  a  member  of  the  preceding  Congress,  finely  expressed  it  by  another 
trope  :  "  From  the  gray  of  that  morning  streamed  the  rays,  which,  uplifting 
with  the  hours,  coursing  with  the  years,  and  keeping  pace  with  the  centuries, 
have  encircled  the  whole  earth  with  the  glorious  light  of  English  liberty  — 
the  liberty  for  which  our  fathers  planted  these  commonwealths  in  the  wilder 
ness  ;  for  which  they  went  through  the  baptism  of  blood  and  fire  in  the  Revo 
lution  ;  which  they  imbedded  and  hoped  to  make  immortal  in  the  Constitution  ; 
without  which  the  Constitution  would  not  be  worth  the  parchment  upon 
which  it  was  written."  As  if  to  make  the  Great  Charter  sacred  forever  in 
the  Anglo-Saxon  memory,  to  connect  it  with  the  holiest  emotions  of  reli 
gion,  and  to  sanction  it  by  the  hopes  and  the  terrors  of  the  unseen  world,  the 
Catholic  hierarchy  of  that  day  —  long  before  Protestantism  arose,  before  the 
Reformation,  before  we  had  the  transcendental  light  of  our  Puritan  preachers 
—  the  English  Catholic  hierarchy,  then  the  champions  of  the  oppressed  and 
the  people,  were  convoked  a  few  days  after  the  unwilling  king  signed  the 
charter.  Picture  that  great  convocation  !  It  meets  in  Westminster  Abbey, 
the  mausoleum  of  the  dead  royalty  and  genius  of  Britain.  Here  is  the  king 
upon  his  throne,  sceptred  and  crowned,  impurpled  in  his  robes  of  office  ; 
near  him  are  the  lords  temporal  in  their  scarlet  gowns  ;  on  his  right  are  the 
gentlemen  of  England  representing  the  Commons,  the  people  of  the  realm ; 
and  within  the  altar  are  the  lords  spiritual,  clad  in  all  the  pomp  of  their  pon- 


236  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

tifical  apparel !  In  the  midst  stands  Stephen  Langton,  Archbishop  of  Can 
terbury,  the  primate  of  England.  The  great  organ  rolls  its  music  amidst 
the  Gothic  arches ;  the  air,  suffused  with  a  dim  religious  light  from  the 
stained  windows,  trembles  with  the  thrill  of  u  symphony  divine,"  and  the 
choir  sing  Te  Deum  laudamus  —  praise  to  God  for  the  great  charter  of  human 
freedom  !  Censers  swing  and  the  incense  wreathes  up  an  offering  to  the  God 
of  justice  !  And  in  that  impressive  presence  the  Archbishop  arises,  and  gath 
ering  upon  his  brow  and  in  his  voice  the  terrors  of  the  invisible  and  eternal 
world,  he  sequesters  and  excludes,  and  from  the  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  from  the  company  of  the  saints  in  heaven  and  the  good  on  earth, 
he  forever  excommunicates  and  accurses  every  one  who  would  dare  to  violate 
that  great  charter  of  Anglo-Saxon  freedom  !  These  curses  were  living  when 
the  popular  branch  of  Congress  rose  above  all  debasing  thought  to  listen  to 
the  teachings  of  Henry  Winter  Davis,  soon  to  be  followed  by  the  judicial 
decisions  of  his  cousin,  Judge  David  Davis,  upon  the  same  inspiring  theme. 
That  House  of  Representatives  deserves  to  be  honored  ever  for  placing  on 
high  the  rights  of  the  people  as  eternized  in  our  traditions,  our  history,  and 
our  Constitution.  But  the  people  of  this  country  are  ever  meeting  as  of  old, 
not  in  any  Gothic  minster,  not  in  the  presence  of  the  hierarchs,  not  with 
ceremony  of  Church  and  State,  not  to  the  music  of  organ  and  choir  or  the 
rising  incense  of  praise,  not  amidst  the  fulminations  of  primates,  but  under 
the  great  sky  of  heaven,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi ;  and  they,  too, 
are  sequestering  and  excluding,  excommunicating  and  accursing  from  the 
company  of  the  good  and  patriotic  everywhere,  all  the  minions  of  power 
*  who  dared  in  this  age  and  land,  and  in  the  midst  of  the  terrible  passions 
of  war,  to  violate  the  sacred  rights  of  personal  and  constitutional  liberty. 

Is  there  any  incident  connected  with  these  events  in  relation  to  personal 
freedom  touching  the  author?  There  is  none  so  significant  to  him  and  his, 
as  the  fact  that  he  was  compelled,  in  the  city  of  Columbus  and  in  the  state  of 
his  birth,  to  keep  at  his  bedside,  a  rope  connected  with  a  bell  to  warn  the 
population  —  who  were  averse  to  a  repetition  of  the  Vallandigham  out 
rage  —  of  any  arrest  upon  the  person  of  their  elected  Representative.  The 
city  of  Columbus  never  lost  either  its  loyalty  to  law  or  its  love  of  liberty.  It 
was  only  when  a  vindictive  legislature  gerrymandered  that  district,  that 
the  author  went  to  New-York.  There  he  has  been  clinging  to  the  horns  of 
the  Democratic  altar.  How  abundantly  grateful  to  his  heart  was  and  is  the 
opulency  of  his  reception  in  that  city  of  Democracy. 

It  is  but  a  fitting  close  of  t&s  question  of  personal  liberty  and  all  that  it 
contains  for  the  reader,  that  it  should  mark  the  beginning  of  a  new  decade 
in  our  policy  or  polity.  It  is  due  to  the  memory  of  Henry  Winter  Davis  that 
the  new  generation  should  know  and  appreciate  the  courageous  patriotism 
and  the  intellectual  stamina  of  that  most  gifted  orator. 


HENRY  WINTER  DAVIS.  237 


Henry  Winter  Davis  was  the  son  of  a  Protestant  Episcopal  minister. 
He  was  born  at  Annapolis,  where  his  father  was  president  of  a  college  and 
rector  of  a  parish.  In  early  times  the  father  had  much  prejudice  against 
Democrats,  and  early  taught  his  son  to  "  beware  of  the  follies  of  Jack- 
sonism."  When  the  war  for  the  Union  came  on,  the  son  had  forgotten 
such  a  peculiar  teaching,  for  if  there  was  one  thing  connected  with  the 
service  of  General  Jackson  more  manifest  than  another,  it  was  his  attachment 
to  the  Union.  Henry  Winter  Davis  graduated  at  Kenyon  College,  Ohio,  in 
1833,  during  the  presidency  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine.  He  was  a  successful  and 
laborious  scholar,  and  a  rare  debater  in  the  conflicts  of  the  societies.  He,  no 
doubt,  learned  his  power  of  analysis  and  his  graces  of  expression  through 
such  exercises.  He  returned  to  his  native  State  of  Maryland  thoroughly 
accomplished  in  all  that  equips  for  free,  profound,  and  legal  investigation. 
Those  who  remember  Mr.  Davis  can  recall  a  certain  boyishness  in  his  man 
ner  and  figure.  This  wore  off  the  moment  he  began  to  speak.  In  the 
writer's  opinion  he  was  the  best  orator  in,  every  sense  of  the  word,  whom 
he  has  ever  heard  in  Congress.  He  had  logic,  but  it  was  logic  set  on  fire  of 
rhetoric.  The  writer  never  heard  him  upon  the  hustings,  but  his  reputation 
as  an  out-door  orator  is  said  to  have  been  equal  to  that  which  he  gained  in 
the  forum.  He  stood  high  professionally,  socially,  and  politically.  He  was 
the  idol  of  the  young  lawyers  of  Baltimore.  He  always  had  a  chosen  circle 
from  the  time  of  his  election  to  the  Thirty-first  Congress  until  his  death. 
After  the  adjournment  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  he  was  engrossed  by 
the  momentous  questions  which  were  urged  for  adjustment.  He  was  among 
the  first  to  consider  the  great  necessity  of  reconstruction.  He  was  in  the 
Thirty-ninth  Congress,  and  although  heartily  received  by  his  colleagues  and 
comrades,  he  did  not  long  remain  with  them.  He  died  in  his  forty-ninth 
year.  The  writer  served  with  him  upon  the  Foreign  Affairs  committee, 
and  without  collision  as  to  questions  connected  with  the  war  and  international 
law.  He  is  especially  proud  to  make  this  memorial  tribute  to  Mr.  Davis, 
because  as  the  war  was  winding  up  and  personal  liberty  became  almost  as 
indispensable  to  our  country  and  its  institutions  as  the  Federal  Union  itself, 
it  was  Henry  Winter  Davis  who  rose  to  the  front  rank  of  debate,  and  by 
his  silvery  style  and  cogent  logic  held  Congress  almost  enthralled  until 
something  was  accorded  to  the  dignity  of  personal  and  public  liberty  which 
had  been  invaded  by  the  excesses  of  the  war. 

This  Maryland  statesman  passed  through  many  dark  days,  not  only  for  his 
state  but  for  the  country.  He  was  ever  for  the  unconditional  maintenance  of 
the  Union,  and  though  once  defeated  by  Henry  May,  a  Union  conservative 
of  great  oratorical  skill  and  fervor,  he  did  not  remain  in  the  rear,  but  still 
pushed  to  the  front.  As  he  once  said  in  a  speech  at  Brooklyn  s  w  You  see 
the  conflagration  from  a  distance.  It  blisters  me  at  my  side.  You  can 
survive  the  integrity  of  the  Nation.  We  in  Maryland  would  live  on  the  side  of 


238  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

a  gulf  perpetually  tending  to  plunge  into  its  depths.  It  is  for  you  life  and 
liberty.  It  is  for  you  greatness  of  strength  and  prosperity."  What  he  did  in 
Maryland  has  been  well  remembered  by  his  compatriots.  He  is  also  re 
membered  for  his  austerely  energetic  yet  elegant  style.  It  is  said  that  he 
had  no  humor.  But  humor  is  nearly  allied  to  wit  and  sarcasm.  It  is 
confessed  he  had  much  of  the  latter,  but  it  was  frequently  blended,  as  the 
writer  has  seen,  with  great  good  temper.  In  some  of  his  speeches,  espe 
cially  those  in  the  midst  of  the  war,  he  made  others  sympathetic  with  his 
own  heroic  resolve.  In  one  of  them  he  eloquently  said  :  "  If  we  fall  with 
honor,  we  transmit  the  liberty  committed  to  our  keeping  untarnished  to  go 
down  to  future  generations.  If  we  must  fall,  let  our  last  hours  be  stained  by 
no  weakness,  let  the  ruins  of  the  Republic  remain  to  testify  to  the  latest  gen 
erations  our  greatness  and  our  heroism,  and  let  Liberty,  crownless  and  child 
less,  sit  upon  these  ruins  crying  aloud  in  a  sad  way  to  the  nations  of  the 
world,  4 1  once  brought  up  children  and  they  have  rebelled  against  me.' " 
Some  of  his  conspicuous  efforts  were  connected  with  the  reconstruction  of 
the  states,  beginning  with  Tennessee.  Why  he  failed  to  produce  the  desired 
effect,  was  owing  perhaps  to  a  lack  of  moderation  in  temper  and  to  an  enthu 
siasm  which  had  been  generated  in  contending  so  closely  in  a  border  state 
with  those  who  opposed  him. 

To  offer  the  olive-branch  of  peace  on  honorable  terms  to  our  Southern 
brothers  was  regarded  as  treason  by  the  radical  leaders.  Yet  at  any  time  the 
pen  of  fraternal  compromise  would  have  been  more  powerful  than  the  sword 
of  war  in  restoring  the  old  harmony  between  the  sections.  All  the  lessons  of 
history  were  ignored.  Even  from  Ireland,  with  her  many  rebellions  and 
much  suffering,  the  Muse  of  History  pointed  with  menacing  finger  to  the 
result  of  the  policies  of  subjugation.  What  a  picture  then  for  observation  ! 
There  stood  Ireland  in  chains,  fettered  to  the  land  of  Magna  Charta  which 
boasted  of  habeas  corpus  and  civil  liberty  !  A  conspiracy  here,  a  plot  there, 
a  rebellion  at  the  capital,  a  rising  at  the  extremities,  public  waste,  private  im 
poverishment,  general  corruption,  periodical  starvation,  political  turpitude, 
and  national  bankruptcy  —  these  were  the  features  of  national  thraldom  which 
Ireland  presented  for  our  warning,  when  men  talked  so  glibly  of  subjugation 
and  confiscation.  How  much  better  would  it  have  been  for  all  countries, 
had  the  sagacious  advice  of  Sydney  Smith  been  followed,  when  he  said : 

"  How  easy  it  is  to  shed  human  blood ;  how  easy  it  is  to  persuade  our 
selves  that  it  is  our  duty  to  do  so,  and  that  the  decision  has  cost  us  a  severe 
struggle ;  how  much,  in  all  ages,  have  wounds,  and  shrieks,  and  tears  been 
the  cheap  and  vulgar  resources  of  the  rulers  of  mankind.  The  vigor  I 
love  consists  in  finding  out  wherein  subjects  are  aggrieved,  in  relieving  them, 
in  studying  the  temper  and  genius  of  a  people,  in  consulting  their  prejudices, 
in  selecting  proper  persons  to  lead  and  manage  them  in  the  laborious, 


THE  OLIVE-BRANCH   NOT    OFFERED  YET.  239 

watchful,  and  difficult  task  of  increasing  public  happiness  by  allaying  each 
particular  discontent." 

When  would  the  olive-branch  be  offered  the  South  ?  Not  until  the  last 
armed  foe  expires,  say  the  Republicans.  They  who  hoped  for  terms  must 
wait  in  vain ;  for  the  passions  of  man  were  aroused  in  the  radical  breast, 
bidding  defiance  to  every  element  of  law,  every  guarantee  of  freedom,  and 
every  sentiment  of  clemency  and  brotherhood.  Under  such  a  condition, 
could  men  of  American  mould  stop  the  conflict  while  there  was  any  power 
left  in  the  South  to  muster  a  battalion  or  fire  a  round  of  canister  ?  Was  it 
any  wonder  that  these  men, — with  famine  in  the  camps,  barefooted  and  in 
rags,  with  munitions  of  war  all  exhausted  and  nothing  left  but  their  valor 
and  despair, —  held  at  bay,  for  a  year  almost,  the  first  captain  of  the  age  and 
the  grandest  army  that  was  ever  mustered  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  No  less 
loyal  a  hand  than  that  of  General  Garfield  himself  has  written  in  imperish 
able  letters,  on  the  annals  of  the  Nation,  these  words  which  will  go  down  to 
all  time  as  a  memorial  of  American  patriotism  and  brotherhood  :  "  The  sol 
diers  of  the  two  armies,  if  left  to  themselves,  would  at  any  time  have  come 
to  a  peaceful  settlement  of  the  war  in  half  an  hour !  "  What  was  this  but 
an  admission  that  the  soldiers  of  the  Union  army  were  at  all  times  fighting 
under  the  original  pledge,  which  gave  Democratic  enthusiasm  to  this  cause 
—  that  the  war  was  for  the  Union,  and  not  for  any  fanatical  scheme  or  issue? 

It  was  well  said  in  the  burning  eloquence  and  patriotism  of  Mr.  Voorhees 
in  his  speech  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  in  March,  1864,  —  that  the  baleful  band 
of  political  destructionists  who  then  unhappily  possessed  the  high  seats  of  na 
tional  authority,  did  not  want  peace.  "  No,"  said  he,  "  they  invoked  the  storm 
which  had  rained  blood  upon  the  land.  They  courted  the  whirlwind.  They 
danced  with  hellish  glee  around  the  bubbling  caldron  of  civil  war.  They 
welcomed  with  ferocious  joy  every  hurtful  mischief  which  flickered  in  its  lurid 
and  infernal  flame.  Compromise,  which  had  its  origin  in  the  love  and  mercy 
of  God ;  which  made  peace  and  ratified  the  treaty  on  Calvary  between 
Heaven  and  the  revolted  and  rebellious  earth ; —  compromise,  which  is  the 
fundamental  basis  upon  which  all  human  associations  have  been  created  and 
upheld,  was  then  pronounced  a  treasonable  word  and  covered  with  reproach 
by  skillful  knaves  intent  on  enriching  themselves  at  the  expense  of  national 
sorrow  and  blood, —  that  compromise  which  would  have  restored  peace  and 
fraternity  to  the  distracted  land,  and  spared  the  desolation  of  bereavement 
and  death  to  a  million  firesides,  was  rejected  by  the  arch-traitors  of  aboli 
tionism."  There  were  then  "  patriots  "  in  plenty  who  denounced  Mr.  Voor 
hees  as  a  traitor  and  a  copperhead  for  such  utterances.  But  not  all  the 
bastiles  that  were  ever  built  could  restrain  the  proud  spirits  of  such  men  as 
Voorhees  and  Vallandigham,  and  their  Democratic  confreres.  These  men 
loyally  sustained  our  armies  in  the  field  in  order  to  conquer  a  peace,  while 
they  hesitated  not  to  assault  the  satrap  Secretary  of  War,  when  ten  thousand 
of  his  armed  guards  were  ever  ready  to  execute  his  most  ferocious  orders. 


240  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Did  the  contest  for  civil  liberty  end  with  the  war  ?  No.  Far  from  that. 
When  secession  died,  as  it  did  in  the  last  ditch,  then  it  was  that  the  malign 
spirit  which  had  hovered  in  the  rear  of  the  conflict  came  to  the  front  to  gloat 
over  the  prostrate  Southern  land.  The  gray  picket  was  no  longer  at  his  post 
to  challenge  the  spirit  of  hate  and  eternal  discord.  No  right  was  now  to  be 
known  but  that  of  conquest  and  spoliation.  Now,  indeed,  had  the  fruit  of 
victory  turned  into  the  dust  of  Sodom.  The  Union  was  at  last  rent  in  twain  ! 
What  neither  secession  nor  war  to  the  last  could  do,  was  now  done  by  act  of 
Congress,  and  radical  hate.  A  new  Executive  had  come  with  a  very  small 
olive-branch  in  his  hand.  What  cared  the  victorious  conspirators  for  that? 
They  spat  upon  it  with  contempt.  They  impeached  him  for  that  small  ten 
der.  What  cared  they  now  for  executive  clemency  ?  What  cared  they  for 
Constitution  guaranties  or  Supreme  Court  decisions  ?  They  would  have  no 
peace  in  the  South  land.  They  would  have  no  law  but  martial  law  in  the 
"  conquered  provinces,"  until  they  could  lay  broad  and  deep  in  Southern 
soil,  the  foundations  of  a  party  structure  that  neither  time  nor  the  American 
people  could  ever  overthrow !  Here,  in  the  opening  year  of  the  second 
decade  of  this  history,  began  the  second  contest  to  save  the  Union;  a  con 
test  no  less  pregnant  with  the  fate  of  American  institutions  than  the  first, 
and  no  less  bitterly  fought ;  a  contest  which  was  not  finally  settled  until  the 
very  last  year  of  Republican  sway.  It  took  almost  a  quarter  of  a  century  to 
silence  the  guns  of  Moultrie  and  Sumter ! 

At  last,  a  measure  of  content  comes  upon  the  despoiled  and  prostrate 
South.  The  party  of  constitutional  liberty,  state  fealty,  and  Federal  unity 
has  succeeded,  and  the  prophecy  has  been  realized,  for  the  old  standard  has 
again  been  high  advanced :  "  Good  tidings  shall  bind  up  the  broken 
hearted,  and  to  them  that  mourn  in  Zion,  give  unto  them  beauty  for  ashes, 
the  oil  of  joy  for  mourning,  and  the  garment  of  praise  for  the  spirit  of 
heaviness.  .  .  .  And  they  shall  build  the  old  wastes,  they  shall  raise  up 
the  former  desolations,  ...  as  the  earth  bringeth  forth  her  bud,  and 
the  garden  causeth  things  that  are  sown  in  it  to  spring  forth."  "Go 
through,  go  through  the  gates,  prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  PEOPLE  ;  cast 
up,  cast  up  the  highway  ;  lift  up  a  standard  for  the  PEOPLE  !  " 


CHAPTER  XII. 


PROSCRIPTION  OF  PERSONS   AND   PROPERTY. 

LEGISLATIVE  AND  EXECUTIVE  MODES  —  NON-INTERCOURSE  —  THEORY  AND  PRAC 
TICE  —  WAS  SECESSION  WAR  OR  NOT  —  IT  WAS  A  PRACTICAL  FACT  —  DILEM 
MA  AS  TO  "  PIRATES  "  AND  PRISONERS  OF  WAR  —  LINCOLN'S  SOLUTION  —  AN 
OMALOUS  RIGORS,  NORTH  AND  SOUTH  — HIGHER  LAW  NEWLY  APPLIED  — 
AESOP'S  SATYR  — AFTER  THE  WAR  —  FOLLY  OF  NON- ACTION  SOUTH  — TWO 
DECADES  OF  TROUBLE  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN  AVERTED  —  RADICAL  PROSCRIP 
TIONS  UNCONSTITUTIONAL  — RATIFICATION  OF  AMENDMENTS  —  CONFISCA 
TION  ACTS  —  ATTAINDER  AND  EX  POST  FACTO  LAWS  —  BELLIGERENT  STATUS 
VIOLATED  — TEST  OATHS  —  LOYALTY  —  CUMMINGS  AND  PERMOLI  CASES  — 
IN  RE  GARLAND— JUSTICE  FIELD'S  DECISIONS  -FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  — 
A  BILL  OF  ATTAINDER  — ITS  MONSTROSITY  — FORCE  BILL  AND  ITS  FATE — 
LIBERTY  ECLIPSED  —  TEST  OATH  REPEALED  IN  1884  — RAPINE  BY  LAW  — 
DEMOCRATIC  PROTESTS  AGAINST  OSTRACISM  AND  TYRANNY. 

WHEN  it  was  finally  determined  that  no  compromise  would  be  ' 
offered  to  the  South  by  the  Republican  party  without  an  abso 
lute  waiver  of  all  the  questions  affecting  slavery,  there  was  no 
mode  left  for  the  settlement  of  the  issue  of  secession,  other 
than  that  by  force  of  arms.  True,  Mr.  Lincoln  issued,  from  time  to  time,  his 
proclamations  to  the  South ;  but  these  were  always  read  by  the  people  to 
whom  they  were  addressed,  in  the  light  of  past  experience.  Mr.  Lincoln  did 
not,  and  could  not  for  his  party,  give  any  assurance  that  the  grievances  of 
which  the  South  complained  would  be  remedied  by  submission  to  Federal 
authority.  Seeing  that  the  idea  of  compromise  was  rejected  with  contempt, 
the  Confederates  at  once  organized  a  de  facto  government.  That  govern 
ment  was  republican  in  form.  It  had  its  constitution,  and  its  three  depart 
ments  of  authority  —  the  legislative,  the  executive,  and  judicial.  Armies 
were  put  in  the  field  and  a  naval  force  was  created  to  maintain  the  independ 
ence  declared  by  the  Southern  States.  In  this  condition  of  affairs,  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  on  April  15,  1861,  issues  a  proclamation  to  the 


242  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

states  of  the  Union.  It  calls  for  seventy-five  thousand  of  the  militia  to  aid  the 
army  and  navy  in  an  effort  to  re-possess  the  forts  and  arsenals  which  had  been 
seized  by  the  Confederate  forces,  and  otherwise  to  compel  submission  to  the 
general  government.  To  this  the  Provisional  Congress  of  the  Confederacy 
responds  on  May  6,  1861.  It  passes  "An  act  recognizing  the  existence  of 
war  between  the  United  States  and  the  Confederate  States,  and  concerning 
Letters  of  Marque,  Prizes,  and  Prize  Goods."  This  act  prescribes  rules  for 
the  conduct  of  the  war,  according  to  the  mode  of  independent  belligerent 
powers.  Shortly  afterward,  on  the  I3th  of  the  same  month,  a  state  of  war  is 
recognized  by  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  government  as  existing  between  the 
de  facto  Confederacy  and  the  United  States.  France  and  the  other  powers 
of  Europe  follow  the  same  course  without  delay.  The  Federal  Government 
protests  against  this  foreign  recognition.  It  denies  the  right  of  a  foreign 
power  to  take  cognizance  of  any  local  or  sectional  disputes  in  this  country. 
It  denies  that  there  is  a  state  of  war  within  the  nation.  It  asserts  that  the 
existing  trouble  is  of  a  temporary  nature,  and  that  the  great  mass  of  the 
Southern  people  will  not  give  their  support  to  an  outbreak  that  must  soon 
be  suppressed  by  the  Federal  Government.  The  immediate  cause,  or  excuse, 
for  foreign  recognition  of  the  Confederacy  is  the  proclamation  of  President 
Lincoln,  issued  on  the  loth  of  April,  1861,  declaring  a  "  blockade"  of  the 
ports  in  certain  of  the  seceded  states,  in  pursuance  of  the  "  law  of  nations  " 
and  u  the  statutes  of  the  United  States  "  in  such  case  made  and  provided. 
Persons  acting  under  the  authority  of  the  Confederacy  who  molest  any  United 
States  vessel  are  to  be  treated  as  "  pirates." 

On  the  1 6th  of  August,  1861,  in  pursuance  of  an  act  of  Congress  recently 
passed,  President  Lincoln  issued  another  proclamation,  declaring  the  inhab 
itants  of  the  eleven  seceding  states  (except  those  of  West  Virginia)  to  be  in 
a  state  of  insurrection  against  the  United  States.  It  forbade  the  citizens  of 
other  states  from  holding  any  commercial  intercourse  with  them.  Other  ex 
ecutive  proclamations  and  acts  of  Congress  followed.  Each  of  them  charac 
terized  the  Confederacy  as  a  pretended  government,  and  the  support  given  to 
it  as  an  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  only  government,  de  facto  or  de 
jure,  within  the  constitutional  limits  of  the  United  States.  Never  once  in 
diplomatic  correspondence,  or  in  proclamations,  or  act  of  Congress,  did  the 
Federal  Government  directly  admit  the  existence  of  a  state  of  war  in  the  South. 
It  was  in  practice  only,  that  war  was  recognized  as  existing.  The  government 
was  compelled  by  force  of  circumstances  to  treat  with  the  Confederacy  as  a 
belligerent  power.  And  because  of  the  ability  of  that  power  to  maintain  what 
is  called  a  war,  the  Federal  Government,  both  from  policy  and  humanity, 
was  compelled  to  suppress  the  "  insurrection"  or  u  rebellion,"  according  to  the 
modes  of  war.  A  pertinent  illustration  of  this  dilemma  occurs  to  the  author. 
In  the  progress  of  events,  and  before  practice  had  regulated  the  theory,  some 
sailors  in  the  Confederate  service  were  captured.  They  were  not  treated 


EXCHANGE  OF  CONFEDERATE  PRISONERS  OF  WAR.  243 

as  prisoners  of  war.  They  were  sent  to  Philadelphia.  They  were  indicted 
as  pirates  by  a  United  States  Court  grand  jury.  They  were  tried  and  con 
victed  as  felons,  for  acts  of  piracy  and  murder  upon  the  high  seas.  The  Con 
federate  authorities  retaliated.  Colonel  Corcoran  and  two  other  Federal 
military  officers  of  equal  rank  had  been  captured  at  Bull  Run.  They  were  at 
once  treated  to  a  like  imprisonment,  if  not  worse.  They  were  held  as  hostages, 
to  be  hanged,  in  case  the  Confederate  seamen  were  hanged.  This  painful 
predicament  alarmed  their  friends  and  fellow-compatriots.  It  led  the  author 
to  introduce  and  have  passed,  at  the  second  session  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Con 
gress,  his  resolution  for  the  exchange  of  prisoners. 

In  this  dilemma,  the  friends  of  the  imperiled  Union  soldiers  visited 
Washington.  They  brought  to  the  President  an  able  presentation  of  the  case 
from  the  gifted  pen  of  Charles  P.  Daly,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Common  Pleas 
of  New- York  City.  Richard  O'Gorman,  the  distinguished  jurist  and  orator, 
now  upon  the  bench  of  that  city,  was  its  custodian  and  interpreter.  He 
called  upon  the  writer  to  present  him  and  his  address  to  President  Lincoln. 
The  writer  was  then  a  Representative  from  Ohio  ;  but  through  many  kindly 
offices  from  the  President,  he  was  regarded  as  being  specially  devoted  to  the 
exchange  of  prisoners  so  as  to  mitigate  the  severities  of  a  war  which  could 
not  then  be  stopped.  After  hearing  the  matter,  the  President  reserved  his 
decision,  but  requested  the  writer  to  call  again.  He  did  call  the  next  day, 
when  a  happy  thought  seemed  to  end  the  controversy.  It  was  developed  out 
of  the  Socratic  method  of  argument. 

The  author  here  presents  his  interrogatories  and  the  responses:  "Mr. 
President,  you  are  endeavoring  to  put  down  this  insurgent  force  by  force  ?  " 
"Yes."  "You  desire  to  keep  alive  the  patriotic  sentiment?"  "Yes."  "The 
Irish  are  a  martial  race.  The  Sixty-ninth  are  Irish.  Colonel  Corcoran  is  their 
favorite.  Will  you  discourage  them?"  "No."  "Will  not  this  threat  of 
retaliation  and  hanging  rob  the  service  of  some  of-its  best  soldiers,  and  detract 
from  its  gallantry  and  esprit?"  "Yes."  "Well,  then,  Mr.  President, if 
much  good  and  no  harm  results  from  relieving  our  Union  officers  in  durance, 
South,  why  not  exercise  your  prerogative?"  "Ah!  there  it  is,"  said  the 
President,  "you  would  have  me  recognize  these  pirates  as  belligerents. 
Remember  that  to  fight  on  land  is  one  thing,  but  on  an  unstable  element  like 
the  sea,  where  men  are  isolated  and  helpless,  is  another."  This  was,  then, 
the  sum  of  the  reasoning  against  an  exchange  of  prisoners.  It  had  in  it 
no  element  of  humanity  or  international  law.  The  writer  then  put  one  more 
question:  "What  is  the  difference  between  firing  a  shot  at  yonder  flag 
(pointing  out  of  the  White  House  window  to  the  flag  flying  from  one  of  the 
forts  on  the  Virginia  hills)  from  Ball's  Cross  Roads,  where  you  can  almost  see 
the  4  stars  and  bars,'  and  firing  a  shot  at  the  same  sacred  emblem  from  under 
the  same  '  star  and  bar'  bunting  upon  the  mobile  element?  Are  not  both  shots 
intended  to  take  the  life  of  the  Union?  Where  is  the  difference  in  intent  and 


244  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

conduct?  Does  the  difference  consist  in  one  being  fired  on  the  soil  and  the 
other  on  the  sea  ?  Is  it  one  thing  from  yonder  red  banks  and  another  from 
the  blue  sea  ?  "  The  President  quizzically  pondered  a  moment  over  the  ad 
absurdum,  and  then  admitted  that  there  was  no  substantial  difference.  He 
promised  relief.  It  came.  Secretary  Seward  ordered  an  exchange  of  the 
so-called  pirates  as  prisoners  of  war. 

All  the  heated  discussions  in  Congress  and  in  the  press  of  the  country  in 
respect  to  the  course  which  should  be  pursued  in  restoring  the  Federal  rela 
tions  to  all  parts  of  the  Union  had  their  source  in  this  anomalous  condition. 
Both  Democrats  and  Republicans  agreed  that  while  secession  was  a  fact,  its 
theory  was  not  to  be  admitted.  They  further  agreed,  while  secession  was 
a  potential  fact,  that  whether  admitted  or  not  to  the  outside  world,  the 
United  States  had  become  bound  to  treat  the  people  of  the  South  who  were 
resisting  the  Federal  laws  and  armies,  not  as  "  rebels  "  and  "  traitors,"  but  as 
belligerents.  Their  belligerent  status  was  irrevocably  admitted  in  the  ca 
pitulation  of  the  armies  of  Lee  and  Johnston.  Early  in  the  contest,  it  be 
came  the  doctrine  of  the  courts  that  the  Confederacy  was  a  belligerent  power, 
and  they  applied  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations  in  the  elucidation  of  all 
questions  arising  out  of  that  state  of  belligerency.  After  the  surrender  of 
these  armies,  it  was  claimed  by  those  who  desired  to  treat  the  late  belliger 
ents  as  a  conquered  people,  that  "  The  law  of  nations  is  above  the  Constitu 
tion."  It  was  meant  by  this,  that  certain  acts  of  Congress  passed  during  the 
existence  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  and  the  period  of  reconstruction,  and 
other  executive  acts,  which  were  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Con 
stitution,  were  in  fact  valid  because  of  that  "higher  law,"  —  the  law  of 
nations. 

While  it  is  admitted  that  the  law  of  nations  is  a  part  of  our  judicial  sys 
tem,  it  has  never  been  regarded  by  any  American  jurist  as  being  above  the 
Constitution.  We  may  except,  perhaps,  some  of  the  extremists  whose  judg 
ment  was  warped  by  passion  and  partisanship.  It  is  certain  that  the  law  of 
nations  has  no  force  against  those  principles  of  our  organic  law  which  de 
fine  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  general  government  in  its  relations  with 
the  states  and  the  people  of  the  Union.  This  is  the  doctrine  that  Mr.  Seward 
stated  to  the  powers  which  recognized  the  Confederacy.  He  protested  against 
recognition  on  the  ground  of  international  law.  It  is  the  very  corner-stone 
of  all  the  proclaimed  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  regard  to  secession  and  its 
consequences.  It  is  the  doctrine  which  the  Democratic  party  asserted  and 
acted  upon,  from  the  first  to  the  last,  in  the  great  ordeal  through  which  the 
nation  passed.  Mr.  Reverdy  Johnson  gave  it  elaboration  and  eloquence  in 
his  debate  with  Senator  Howe  and  other  Senators  on  the  reconstruction 
policy,  to  which  allusion  is  made  in  subsequent  chapters.  He  said  that  the 
armed  resistance  in  the  South  was  a  rebellion  or  insurrection  fully  provided 
for  in  the  Constitution.  It  might  be  called  war  by  international  law,  but 


HIGHER  LAW  NEWLY  APPLIED.  245 

not  by  constitutional  law.  True,  the  logical  technical  result  would  be,  as 
Mr.  Johnson  admitted,  that  those  who  aided  the  Confederacy  had  violated 
the  laws  of  their  country  and  were  subject  to  its  penalties. 

The  infliction  of  severe  penalties  was  the  very  thing  most  desired  by  the 
radical  party.  They  had,  however,  a  method  in  their  passion.  Revenge  was 
sweet,  but  political  ascendency  and  the  power  it  confers,  was  far  sweeter. 
Besides  this,  would  it  be  possible  to  inflict  the  penalties  of  the  law  on  a 
whole  people  who  had  violated  the  law  ?  Could  a  criminal  intent  be  attrib 
uted  to  the  whole  people  of  a  state  or  of  a  confederacy  ?  Ought  the  era  of 
barbarism  to  be  permitted  to  come  back  with  its  cruelties  and  rigors?  There 
was  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  people  who  suppressed  secession  to 
execute  the  rigors  of  the  law.  Nor  would  it  be  sound  policy  to  attempt  it. 
Every  instinct  of  common  blood  would  be  in  revolt  against  it.  Our  conces 
sion  of  belligerent  rights  to  the  South  was  in  itself  a  waiver  of  the  right  to 
prosecute  our  Southern  brethren  for  their  belligerent  acts.  It  would  have 
been  simply  atrocious,  under  such  circumstances,  and  after  peace  was  restored, 
to  carry  on  a  system  of  proscription  in  the  courts,  even  though  it  were  possi 
ble  to  find  judges  and  juries  so  depraved  as  to  become  its  instruments.  But 
by  no  other  mode  than  this  could  any  citizen,  while  subject  to  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  United  States,  be  deprived  of  the  rights  pertaining  to  citizenship. 
The  war  was  prosecuted  by  the  United  States  on  the  theory  that  every  man, 
woman,  and  child  in  the  seceded  states  owed  allegiance  to  the  Federal  Con 
stitution  and  Government.  No  other  theory  was  at  any  time  admitted  in 
the  North.  The  people  of  this  section  would  at  no  time  admit  that  the 
mode  adopted  to  enforce  Federal  jurisdiction  —  the  mode  of  war — estopped 
them  from  asserting  the  unity  of  the  Nation  with  all  its  incidents  of  power. 
Hence,  it  logically  and  constitutionally  follows,  that  no  citizen  could  law 
fully  be  estopped  in  the  defense  of  his  rights  as  a  citizen,  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  repudiated  the  government  that  was  created  to  maintain  its  sover 
eignty  over  him.  He  could  not  "  attorn  "  his  Federal  allegiance. 

Here  was  a  predicament  for  the  party  of  reconstruction.  Its  shrewd 
leaders  foresaw  it  early  in  the  conflict.  The  very  men  who  most  bitterly 
opposed  the  exchange  of  prisoners,  lest  it  might  be  regarded  as  a  recognition  of 
a  belligerent  power  in  the  South,  were  the  most  positive  in  asserting,  after  that 
power  had  ceased  to  exist,  that  in  fact  and  in  law  it  had  existed.  According  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  radical  apostles,  the  Union  was  abolished.  Eleven  of  its 
states  had  in  fact,  and  according  to  the  "  higher  law,"  established  an  independ 
ent  government,  with  which  the  other  fragmentary  government  of  the  late 
Union  was  at  war  until  it  came  out  victorious.  Va  metis  I  they  cried. 
The  South  was  now  at  the  mercy  of  the  party  of  conquest.  It  must  be  gov 
erned  as  a  recently  acquired  province.  No,  not  even  that,  for  a  conquered 
country  is  allowed  to  retain  its  own  domestic  institutions,  when  it  gives  its 
fealty  to  the  conqueror.  The  Republican  party  must  be  allowed  to  act  in 


246  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  inconsistent  manner  that  elicited  the  contempt  of  that  fabulous  monster  — 
y'Esop's  Satyr.  It  must  be  allowed  to  blow  hot  and  cold  out  of  the  same 
mouth.  It  must,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  party  ascendency  in  the  future, 
be  allowed  to  establish  the  principle  that  states  can  secede  from  the  Union ; 
and  that  when  they  do  secede,  they  are  in  the  Union  and  out  of  the  Union  — 
subject  to  the  Constitution  and  not  subject  to  the  Constitution  —  whenever  it 
suits  the  party  in  power  so  to  assert.  When  the  Republican  party  chose  to 
do  such  a  trifling  act  as  to  enforce  the  adoption  of  amendments  to  the  Con 
stitution,  then  there  had  been  no  secession.  No  state  had  escaped  from  its  Fed 
eral  relations.  The  Union  had  not  been  destroyed.  But  when  it  came  to  the 
serious  matter  of  electing  some  village  constable,  or  the  mayor  of  a  city,  or  a 
judge,  or  a  legislator,  or  a  Senator  or  Representative  to  the  Congress,  then, 
behold!  —  all  was  changed.  The  South  immediately  became  a  conquered 
province.  The  Democratic  party  had  no  disposition  to  practice  such  political 
legerdemain.  Its  doctrine  involved  neither  tyranny  nor  trickery.  Nothing 
but  successful  revolution  could  take  a  state  out  of  the  Union.  Eleven  states 
had  made  the  attempt.  The  attempt  failed.  Therefore,  the  Union,  with 
all  its  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  power,  remained  unimpaired  and  perfect. 
There  could  be  no  proscription  of  secessionists,  except  in  the  courts  by  a 
verdict  of  their  peers  and  judicial  sentence.  In  this  mode  only,  could  any 
citizen  who  made  war  against  the  government,  or  any  citizen  who  aided, 
abetted,  or  sympathized  with  those  who  were  in  armed  hostility  to  the  gov 
ernment  be  deprived  of  any  right.  Such  proscription  was  both  impossible 
and  impolitic.  It  would  have  been  disgraceful  to  humanity,  and  destructive 
of  the  harmony  and  fellowship  that  every  true  patriot  desired.  The  Demo 
cratic  party  was  performing  a  high  duty  when  it  opposed  all  other  modes  of 
proscription  in  the  South. 

These  strictures  upon  the  Republican  policy  apply  with  equal  force  to 
the  extreme  secession  party  in  the  South.  The  latter  had  adopted  a  consti 
tution  substantially  like  the  one  which  they  tried  to  ignore.  The  measures 
they  adopted  for  carrying  on  the  war  for  secession  were  as  contrary  to  the 
principles  of  their  new  organic  law  as  to  those  of  the  national  Constitution. 
In  the  South,  banishment,  ostracism,  perpetual  sequestration  of  estates,  and 
confiscations  —  all  were  enacted  by  the  Confederate  Congress  within  six 
months  after  the  breaking  out  of  hostilities.  Loyalty  to  the  Union  was  by 
law  and  proclamation  made  treason  to  the  Confederacy.  All  male  citizens 
of  the  age  of  fourteen,  not  being  citizens  of  one  of  the  seceding  states,  or  of 
certain  named  slave  states  and  territories  which  had  not  yet  seceded,  and 
who  remained  loyal  to  the  Union,  were  regarded  as  alien  enemies.  They 
were  to  be  treated  as  such.  They  were  commanded  to  depart  from  the  Con 
federacy  within  forty  days.  If  they  did  not  do  so,  they  could  be  arrested  on 
the  complaint  of  any  person.  They  could  be  brought  before  the  criminal 
courts  for  trial  and  sentence  of  banishment.  The  marshals  were  specially 


ARBITRARY  ACTS  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY.  247 

charged  with  the  duty  of  enforcing  this  ostracism.  The  warrant  of  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  Confederacy,  or  of  any  criminal  court  or  judge,  was  sufficient 
authority  for  the  marshals  in  the  enforcement  of  such  banishments.  The 
sequestration  acts  were  simply  barbarous.  All  rights  and  interests  in  lands, 
tenements,  and  hereditaments,  goods  and  chattels,  and  all  credits  possessed 
or  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  refused  to  adhere  to  the 
Confederacy,  were  sequestered  on  the  2ist  of  May,  1861.  Every  citizen  of 
the  Confederacy  was  made  an  informer  on  his  Union  neighbors.  All  citizens 
were  required  to  give  information  to  the  officers  charged  with  the  duty  of 
enforcing  the  sequestration  acts.  Attorneys,  agents,  business  partners,  trus 
tees,  and  others  having  property  in  a  fiduciary  capacity,  who  failed  to  give 
information  touching  property  or  credits  subject  to  sequestration,  were  liable 
to  indictment  as  for  a  high  misdemeanor,  and  to  be  fined  and  imprisoned  on 
conviction.  Besides  this,  they  were  subject  to  a  suit  by  the  Confederate 
States  for  the  recovery  of  double  the  value  of  the  estate,  property,  or  effects 
of  the  enemy  subject  to  their  control,  and  of  which  information  had  not  been 
given.  Every  arbitrary  act  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  the  sup 
pression  of  secession  had  its  counterpart,  and  worse,  in  the  Confederacy. 
There  was  the  same  suspension  of  habeas  corpus,  the  same  system  of  arbitrary- 
arrests  and  military  trials,  the  same  conscription  laws.  They  were  all  vigor 
ously  enforced.  No  man,  however  honorable,  dared  express  a  word  or  senti 
ment  that  might  be  construed  as  being  opposed  to  secession.  The  civil 
courts  were  everywhere  as  arbitrary  in  "  disloyalty"  cases  as  any  military 
tribunal  could  possibly  be. 

Why  then,  it  may  be  asked,  did  the  Democratic  party  oppose  the  like 
measures  in  the  North  ?  Why,  when  Union  men  in  the  South  were  treated 
as  alien  enemies  and  traitors  ?  Several  answers  may  be  made  to  this  ques 
tion.  The  best  and  last  answer  is,  that  on  the  part  of  the  North  the  war 
was  intended  to  be  prosecuted  not  as  against  alien  enemies,  but  as  against 
revolting  citizens  whom  its  people  desired  to  bring  back  to  their  proper  re 
lations  with  the  government  of  one  common  republic,  in  which  every  citizen 
must  necessarily  enjoy  equal  rights  and  privileges.  The  insurrection  was  of 
such  vast  extent,  that  the  universal  amnesty  which  was  implied  by  the  conces 
sion  of  belligerent  rights  to  the  South  was  the  only  wise  and  patriotic  policy 
that  was  left  to  the  general  government.  The  events  which  followed  the 
close  of  the  war,  and  the  status  of  the  Southern  people  to-day,  give  an  ample 
vindication  of  the  Democratic  policy. 

Weighing  the  conduct  of  the  Confederate  government  in  the  scales  of 
impartial  judgment,  it  will  be  found  that  in  the  South  there  was  some 
justification  for  severe  measures.  In  the  North  there  was  not  a  handful  of  men, 
outside  the  ranks  of  the  violent  abolitionists,  who  desired  the  disruption  of 
the  Union.  •  The  ordinary  legal  remedies  of  long  existing  laws  were  ample 
in  the  North  for  the  restraint  and  punishment  of  persons  who  might  give 


248  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

aid  and  comfort  and  to  those  who  were  in  armed  hostility  to  the  Union.  It  was 
far  otherwise  in  the  South.  In  every  county  of  that  section  there  was,  either 
dormant  or  active,  a  strong  Union  sentiment.  Those  who  wanted  to  destroy 
the  Union  had,  of  course,  no  desire,  and  no  expectation  of  ever  again  acknowl 
edging  the  Federal  Government  as  their  own  government.  Unlike  the 
Democratic  party  of  the  North,  they  did  not  look  forward  to  a  common 
citizenship  and  federation  of  reunited  states  and  people.  Hence,  in  their 
condition  and  temper,  the  most  extreme  measures  for  the  support  of  their 
cause  would  seem  right,  when  deemed  necessary.  If  the  Southern  sup 
porters  of  secession  were  blinded  by  passion  and  reckless  of  consequences, 
there  was  all  the  more  reason  for  moderation  and  broad  generosity  at  the 
North,  if  the  constitutional  government  was  to  endure. 

These  considerations  had  no  weight  in  the  dominant  faction  of  the  Re 
publican  party.  In  the  first  attempt  to  restore  Federal  authority  over  the 
South  after  hostilities  had  ceased,  the  strength  of  that  faction  was  greatly 
augmented  by  the  insanity  and  folly  of  a  large  portion  of  the  Southern 
people,  who,  instead  of  accepting  the  results  of  the  war  as  inevitable,  took 
pride  in  the  assertion  that  the  South  had  been  "conquered,"  and  that 
they  themselves  were  "  aliens."  They  took  pride  in  admitting  that  they  were 
in  the  very  situation  that  the  radical  reconstructionists  had  pronounced  them 
to  be,  namely,  that  they  were  the  conquered  people  of  conquered  provinces. 
They  disdainfully  abstained  from  taking  any  part  in  the  work  of  rehabilita 
tion.  There  was  some  sentimentality  in  this  course,  but  at  the  same  time 
there  was  certainly  a  great  absence  of  wisdom.  What  if  the  leaders  of 
secession  had  been  disfranchised  by  unconstitutional  acts  of  Congress  and 
invalid  proclamations,  —  had  not  amnesty  been  extended  to  the  great  mass  of 
the  people  who  had  participated  in  the  war  for  secession  ?  At  most  the  pro 
scriptions  would  be  but  temporary.  When  the  true  fraternal  spirit  of  the 
fathers  would  again  animate  the  re-united  states  and  people  of  the  Union, 
all  proscriptions  and  sectional  animosities  would  be  buried  in  the  grave  of 
the  past. 

When  the  war  closed  there  was  but  one  Union  party  in  the  country. 
This  was  the  Democratic  party  of  the  North.  Had  its  policy  then  pre 
vailed,  sectional  discord  would  soon  have  disappeared ;  the  peace  of  1885 
would  have  been  ante-dated  twenty  years.  There  would  have  been  the  same 
constitutional  abolishment  of  slavery ;  for  the  Democratic  party  was  in  no 
mood  to  offer  it  any  resistance.  There  would  have  been  a  better,  because 
a  voluntary  extension  of  the  political  franchise.  For,  as  often  asserted  by 
such  a  champion  of  slavery  as  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  was  one  of  the  inevitable 
and  logical  consequences  of  emancipation.  The  suffrage  would  have  been 
gradually  extended. 

The  writer  has  asserted  that  the  radical  proscriptions  of  the  Southern 
people  were  in  violation  of  the  Constitution.  This  can  be  demonstrated. 


ATTAINDER  AND  EX  POST  FACTO  LAWS.  249 

It  is  a  fundamental  principle  that  the  Constitution  is  co-extensive  with  the 
Union  for  which  it  was  ordained.  It  may  be  amended,  but  only  in  the  mode 
prescribed  in  the  fifth  article  of  that  instrument.  This  has  been  expressly 
admitted  by  those  who  asserted  that  the  seceding  states  were  outside  of  the 
aegis  of  the  Constitution ;  and  that  they  were  not  states  of  the  Union  after 
they  had  resisted  Federal  authority,  nor  for  some  years  after  peace  had  been 
proclaimed.  If  the  latter  had  been  true,  there  would  be  no  validity  in  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  which  abolished  slavery.  It  did  not  receive  ratifi 
cation  by  three-fourths  of  the  states,  if  Virginia,  Arkansas,  South  Carolina, 
North  Carolina,  Alabama,  and  Georgia  were  not  states  of  the  Union  on  Feb. 
i,  1865,  when  it  was  proposed,  or  on  Dec.  18,  1865,  when  the  Secretary  of 
State  proclaimed  that  it  had  been  submitted  to  the  thirty-six  states  of  the 
Union,  and  that  only  twenty-seven  of  them  —  including  those  named  — had 
ratified  it. 

This  exhibition  refutes  the  disunion  theory,  that  the  seceding  states 
were  out  of  the  Union,  and  that  their  people  had  no  constitutional  rights. 
Yet  it  was  on  this  disunion  theory  that  all  the  prescriptive  measures  of  the 
war  and  reconstruction  were  based.  The  confiscation  acts  of  the  Thirty- 
seventh  Congress,  and  certain  other  acts,  were  in  effect  bills  of  attainder  as 
the  term  is  understood  in  the  Constitution.  The  radicals  sought  by  these 
acts,  to  impose  pains  and  penalties  on  certain  classes  of  the  people  of  the 
South  without  previous  ascertainment  of  criminal  guilt  in  the  judicial  courts. 
But  the  citizen  cannot  be  deprived  of  any  right  by  act  of  Congress.  The 
confiscation  acts  were  passed  for  the  punishment  of  persons  who  levied  war 
against  the  government,  that  is  to  say,  persons  who  bore  arms  against  the 
United  States,  or  who  aided  and  abetted  the  insurrection.  This  punishment 
could  not  be  inflicted  except  by  proper  judicial  proceedings.  There  must 
first  be  a  criminal  conviction  as  a  foundation  for  confiscation.  It  is  like  the 
case  of  an  ex  $ost  facto  law,  wherein,  as  the  Supreme  Court  said  in  the  case 
of  Cummings  vs.  the  State  of  Missouri,  the  Constitution  cannot  be  evaded 
by  giving  a  civil  form  to  that  which  is  in  substance  criminal. 

There  was  all  the  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  extremists  who  made  and 
directed  the  policy  of  the  government  during  the  war  and  reconstruction 
periods,  to  prosecute  every  person  in  the  South  who  had  taken  a  prominent 
part  in  secession.  But  our  judicial  system  was  so  hedged  in  by  constitu 
tional  safeguards  that  this  was  impossible.  The  utmost  extent  of  their  vin 
dictive  policy  was  confined  to  the  seizure  of  property,  and  to  proceedings 
in  rent  for  its  condemnation.  They  were,  in  a  measure,  successful  in  this, 
under  acts  of  Congress  defining  jurisdiction  and  making  harsh  rules  of  evi 
dence.  It  was  only  by  such  proceedings  —  which  required  no  jury  —  that 
there  could  be  any  plausible  mode  of  evading  the  constitutional  guaranties, 
and  violating  the  amnesty  which  was  implied  by  the  belligerent  status  of 
the  North  and  South,  in  the  war  for  the  Union  on  one  side  and  secession 

16 


250  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

on  the  other.  The  code  of  war  rather  than  the  principles  of  peace,  was  in 
voked  for  the  support  of  all  unconstitutional  legislation  and  conduct.  The 
"war  powers  of  the  government "  were  constantly  appealed  to,  instead  of 
the  Constitution.  Where  the  latter  would  restrain  extreme  measures,  the 
jus  bellum  would  give  sanction.  And  all  this  was  done  to  restore  the 
Union  !  —  to  reunite  the  sections  in  harmony  ! 

But  the  most  far-reaching  measures  were  the  disqualifications  and  dis- 
franchisements  which  were  enacted  and  proclaimed  against  erring  brethren. 
Was  there  any  utility  or  sound  policy  in  such  an  ultra  proscription  as  that 
which  required  oaths  and  averments  of  past  loyalty  among  a  people  who 
had  made  war  against  the  Union,  and  who  were  now  conscious  of  their  grave 
error  ?  Was  this  the  way  to  induce  a  willing  submission,  or  to  bring  back  the 
Union  ?  Such  a  proscription  could  only  be  made  valid  by  an  abandonment 
of  all  regard  for  the  principles  and  essence  of  our  political  system.  This 
proscription  denied  the  only  right  mode  of  punishing  guilt,  and  assumed  that 
every  person  in  the  South  was  a  criminal.  It  placed  the  burden  of  proof 
on  the  defense,  instead  of  on  the  prosecution.  It  did  this,  when  there  was 
no  guilt  at  all, — for  was  not  the  recognition  of  a  state  of  war,  in  itself  am 
nesty  ?  And  was  not  this  amnesty  confirmed  by  the  Executive  proclamations  ? 

The  sole  object  of  all  the  legislative  and  executive  acts  looking  to  the 
proscription  of  those  who  had  been  defeated  in  the  attempt  to  secede  from 
the  Union,  was  to  secure  permanent  ascendency  to  the  Republican  party. 
This  was  to  be  effected  by  the  aid  of  the  colored  voters.  Therefore,  in  the 
work  of  rehabilitation  in  the  states,  the  attempt  was  made  to  exclude  every 
white  citizen  who  went  into  the  secession  movement,  or  who  sympathized 
with  it.  From  what  has  been  already  said,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  attempt 
was,  in  its  spirit,  obnoxious  to  the  objection  against  attainders.  For,  was  it 
not  the  intention  to  deprive  citizens  of  their  rights  without  judicial  decree  ? 
Was  it  not,  also,  obnoxious  to  true  statesmanship,  which  is  not  swayed  by 
prejudices  or  passions  ?  Illustrative  of  this  vindictive  partisan  policy,  were 
the  constitutions  forced  upon  the  states  which  had  either  entirely  or  in  part 
gone  into  secession.  For  example,  a  so-called  convention  of  the  people  of 
Missouri  assembled  at  St.  Louis,  in  January,  1865.  They  met  for  the  pur 
pose  of  so  revising  and  amending  the  state  constitution,  as  to  secure,  for  all 
time,  the  ascendency  of  the  very  small  minority  party  that  assumed  to  govern 
the  state  with  the  aid  of  Federal  bayonets.  Among  the  amendments  made, 
was  one  which  denied  the  right  to  vote  at  any  election  held  by  the  people  to 
any  person  who  was  otherwise  qualified  to  vote,  if  he  had  ever  been  in  armed 
hostility  to  the  United  States  or  to  the  state  government.  Any  person  who 
had  given  aid  or  comfort,  countenance  or  support,  to  any  person  engaged 
on  the  Southern  side  in  the  Civil  War  was  disfranchised.  He  was  disfran 
chised,  if  he  ever,  by  "  act  or  word,"  or  "  desire,"  or  by  "  sympathy,"  sided 
with  the  South,  or  did  not  at  all  times  desire  the  defeat  of  the  South.  Not 


THE  REV.  MR.  CUMMINGS'  CASE.  251 

only  were  the  people  so  disfranchised,  but  every  person  who  had  aided  or 
sympathized  with  the  South  was  made  incapable  of  holding  any  office  of 
honor,  trust,  or  profit  in  the  state,  under  its  authority.  Nor  did  the  proscrip 
tion  stop  there.  No  such  person  could  be  an  officer,  councilman,  director, 
trustee,  or  other  manager  of  any  public  or  private  corporation.  Did  the  pro 
scription  stop  there  ?  No ;  such  person  would  not  be  allowed  to  act  as  a 
professor  or  teacher  in  any  educational  institution,  or  in  any  common  or 
other  school ;  nor  be  allowed  to  hold  any  real  estate  or  other  property  in 
trust,  for  the  use  of  any  church,  religious  society,  or  congregation. 

An  "  oath  of  loyalty"  was  then  prescribed.  This  required  the  solemn 
denial  of  ever  having  directly  or  indirectly  done  any  of  the  acts  of  disqualifi 
cation  against  which  the  amendment  was  leveled.  Sixty  days  after  this 
constitution  took  effect,  no  person  was  to  be  allowed,  without  first  taking 
this  oath,  to  practice  as  an  attorney  or  counselor-at-law.  Did  the  proscription 
stop  there  ?  No.  After  that  time  no  person  was  to  be  competent  as  a  bishop, 
priest,  deacon,  minister,  elder,  or  other  clergyman  of  any  religious  persua 
sion,  sect,  or  denomination,  to  teach  or  preach,  or  solemnize  marriages, 
unless  he  had  first  taken,  subscribed,  and  filed  the  said  oath.  After  the 
expiration  of  sixty  days,  whoever  should  hold  or  exercise  any  of  the  offices, 
positions,  trusts,  professions,  or  functions  specified,  without  having  taken  the 
prescribed  oath,  was  made  liable,  on  conviction  thereof,  to  be  punished  by  a 
fine  of  not  less  than  five  hundred  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  for  not  less 
than  six  months  in  the  county  jail,  or  both,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court. 
The  false  taking  of  this  oath  was  made  perjury,  with  the  penalty  of  im 
prisonment  in  the  penitentiary. 

This  constitution  was  submitted  to  the  "loyal"  people  only.  It  was  rati 
fied  the  following  June.  The  vote  was  taken  under  military  supervision.  The 
following  September,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cummings,  a  priest  of  the  Catholic 
Church  and  a  citizen  of  the  state,  was  indicted  and  convicted  in  the  Circuit 
Court  of  Pike  County.  His  crime  was  that  of  teaching  and  preaching 
without  having  taken  the  oath  referred  to.  He  was  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine 
of  five  hundred  dollars,  and  to  be  committed  to  jail  until  the  fine  and  the  costs 
were  paid.  On  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  state,  the  judgment  of 
the  Circuit  Court  was  affirmed.  The  case  was  then  brought  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  It  was  argued  for  the  plaintiff  in  error,  by 
David  Dudley  Field,  Reverdy  Johnson,  and  Montgomery  Blair,  and  for  the 
state  by  G.  P.  Strong  and  John  B.  Henderson. 

The  question  presented  was,  as  to  whether  the  sections  of  the  state  consti 
tution  which  contained  these  proscriptions  were  or  were  not,  in  effect,  a  bill 
of  attainder.  Were  they,  as  such,  obnoxious  to  that  clause  of  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  which  prohibits  a  state  from  passing  any  "bill 
of  attainder,"  or  "  ex  post  facto  law."  In  the  discussion  of  this  question, 
the  counsel  left  nothing  unsearched  or  unsaid  to  maintain  their  respective 
sides  of  it. 


252  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

It  was  contended  for  the  state,  that  in  the  adoption  of  this  constitution 
it  was  exercising  its  sovereign  right  to  determine  the  qualification  of  voters 
and  office-holders,  and  to  prescribe  the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which  the 
people  within  its  jurisdiction  should  exercise  their  various  pursuits.  The 
state  had  the  right  to  regulate  its  own  municipal  affairs,  to  prescribe  who 
should  vote  and  hold  office,  and  who  should  exercise  the  profession  of  the 
law,  or  form  the  character  of  her  people  by  secular  or  clerical  teaching.  On 
the  other  side,  while  not  denying  this  doctrine,  it  was  contended  that  such 
regulations  must  not  be  obnoxious  to  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  They 
were  not  intended  for  municipal  regulations,  but  as  political  proscriptions 
of  the  worst  form.  They  were  intended  to  operate  as  punishments,  with 
out  judicial  trials.  They  had  all  the  qualities  of  a  bill  of  attainder,  or  an 
ex  post  facto  law,  and  were,  therefore,  null  and  void. 

No  act  of  tyranny  was  more  detested,  from  the  days  of  Magna  Charta 
down,  than  parliamentary  or  royal  attainders.  The  life,  liberty,  and  prop 
erty  were  all  forfeited  by  attainders,  without  allowing  the  persons  or  classes 
of  persons  at  whom  they  were  leveled,  any  opportunity  to  prove  their  inno 
cence  of  the  offense  imputed  to  them.  Our  ancestors  abhorred  such  vin 
dictive  tyranny.  Therefore,  in  framing  our  Constitution,  they  expressly 
denied  the  existence  of  any  power,  either  state  or  Federal,  to  pass  a  bill  of 
attainder,  or  an  ex  post  facto  law.  All  acts  for  which  any  person  would  be 
liable  to  be  deprived  of  his  life,  liberty,  or  property,  must  be  previously  de 
fined  by  the  law.  All  proceedings  against  him  for  the  punishment  of  such 
acts,  must  be  in  the  judicial  courts,  and  in  due  form  of  law. 

In  the  case  of  Mr.  Cummings,  there  was  mature  deliberation  among  the 
members  of  the  Supreme  Court ;  but  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  there  was  not 
a  unanimous  opinion.  Mr.  Justice  Miller,  on  behalf  of  himself  and  Mr. 
Chief  Justice  Chase,  Mr.  Justice  Swayne,  and  Mr.  Justice  Davis,  delivered 
a  dissenting  opinion. 

The  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  Court  was  delivered  at  the  Decem 
ber,  1866,  term  of  the  Court,  by  Mr.  Justice  Field,  with  that  lucid  style 
and  clear  grasp  of  the  principles  of  the  law  of  liberty  for  which  his  de 
cisions  are  distinguished.  It  was  demonstrated  and  decided  that  no  state 
could  create  disqualifications  like  those  in  the  Missouri  constitution,  be 
cause  their  effect  was  to  inflict  punishment  by  attainder.  There  was  no 
evidence  that  Mr.  Cummings  had  been  guilty  of  any  act  of  disloyalty,  or 
that  he  had  at  any  time  a  disloyal  thought  or  sympathy.  He  was  not  so 
charged.  He  was  charged  only  with  having  failed  to  take  an  oath  which, 
if  he  had  been  disloyal,  would  have  made  him  liable  to  prosecution  for 
perjury.  The  nature  of  the  proscriptions  were  such  that  no  man  at  whom 
they  were  aimed  could  exercise  the  rights  of  a  citizen.  They  made  him 
his  own  accuser.  A  refusal  to  take  the  oath  deprived  him  of  his  rights. 
He  was  not  at  liberty  to  exercise  his  rights  without  taking  the  oath. 


SUPREME  COURT  DECISIONS.  253 

The  Court,  therefore,  held  that  this  was  a  penal  restraint  of  civil  liberty. 
It  was,  as  such,,a  punishment.  It  was,  to  that  extent,  an  attainder.  Although 
this  attainder  was  milder  than  those  in  the  days  of  the  Plantagenets  and 
Tudors,  the  constitution  which  imposed  it  was  a  bill  of  pains  and  penalties, 
inasmuch  as  it  deprived  Mr.  Cummings  of  the  hitherto  sacred  right  to  preach 
the  Gospel  and  teach  morality.  It  had  also  the  character  of  an  ex  post  facto 
law ;  it  changed  the  rules  of  evidence  by  assuming  the  guilt  instead  of 
the  innocence  of  the  people  whom  it  proscribed.  There  is  no  practical  dif 
ference  between  declaring  guilt  and  requiring  a  denial  of  it  under  oath.  In 
short,  the  Court  held  that  the  prohibitions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  against  bills  of  attainder  and  ex  post  facto  laws  were  intended  to  secure 
the  people  against  any  punishment  or  deprivation  of  rights  for  past  conduct, 
by  retroactive  legislation.  The  people  had  secured  to  themselves  in  this 
organic  law,  the  right  to  have  all  offenses,  involving  their  life,  liberty,  and 
property,  defined  by  law  and  tried  in  the  open  courts.  They  had  the  right 
to  a  trial  by  an  impartial  jury.  They  had  a  right  to  be  defended  by  counsel 
learned  in  the  law  ;  and  to  be  confronted  with,  and  to  cross-examine  the  wit 
nesses  brought  against  them.  The  government  must  first  submit  its  proof  of 
guilt  before  any  person,  even  the  humblest  citizen,  is  to  be  called  on  to  bring 
in  evidence  for  his  defense. 

It  resulted,  in  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cummings'  case,  that  the  judgment  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Missouri  was  reversed.  That  court  was  directed  to  dis 
charge  him  from  his  unlawful  imprisonment.  All  the  proscriptions  of  the 
state  constitution  were  unconstitutional  and  void. 

The  dissenting  opinion  in  Mr.  Cummings'  case  was  made  a  part  of  the 
dissent  in  another  case  at  the  same  December  term.  This  was  the  case 
well  known  as  Ex  parte  Garland,  of  which  mention  will  be  made  pres 
ently.  The  dissenting  judges  held  that  the  sections  of  the  state  constitution 
upon  which  the  case  rested  were  not  in  conflict  with  the  prohibitions  against 
bills  of  attainder  and  ex  post  facto  laws.  That  they  were  qualifying  regu 
lations  on  subjects  over  which  the  state  had  rightful  jurisdiction.  The  oath 
was  not  prescribed  for  a  class  of  the  people,  but  for  all  classes.  No  one  was 
compelled  to  take  it.  No  sentence  was  pronounced  on  anybody.  The  party 
interested  determined  his  own  guilt  or  innocence  and  pronounced  his  own 
sentence.  The  reasoning  of  the  dissenters  is  plausible.  But  it  is  not  judicial. 
It  does  not  take  judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  a  short  time  before,  there  was 
a  civil  war  in  the  country,  and  a  state  government  in  Missouri  that  sided 
with  secession,  and  that  a  large  portion  of  the  people  of  the  state,  perhaps  a 
majority,  had  been  active  supporters  of  the  irregular  state  government. 
They  shut  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  it  was  on  this  portion  of  the  people  that 
the  amendments  of  the  constitution  would  operate,  so  as  to  render  them  una 
ble  to  exercise  rights,  not  only  of  a  political,  but  also  of  a  civil  and  indi 
vidual  character.  But  the  minority  judges  did  not  base  their  dissent  solely 


254  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

on  constitutional  construction.  They  held  that  the  question  did  not  arise 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  was,  in  their  opinion,  a  ques 
tion  involving  religious  liberty.  Congress  could  not  make  any  law  respecting 
the  establishment  of  religion,  nor  prohibit  its  free  exercise.  But  no  state  was 
so  restrained.  The  case  of  the  Rev.  B.  Permoli,  reported  in  3  Howard,  Su 
preme  Court  reports,  was  cited.  "  If,"  said  Mr.  Justice  Miller,  "  there  ever 
was  a  case  calling  upon  this  Court  to  exercise  all  the  power  on  this  subject 
which  properly  belongs  to  them,  it  was  the  case  of  the  Rev.  B.  Permoli." 
The  case  referred  to  was  this :  By  an  ordinance  of  the  first  municipal  dis 
trict  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  a  penalty  was  imposed  on  any  priest  who 
should  officiate  at  any  funeral,  in  any  other  church  than  the  obituary  chapel. 
Mr.  Permoli  was  a  Catholic  priest.  In  the  execution  of  his  sacred  office,  he 
was  called  upon  to  perform  the  funeral  services  of  his  church  over  the  body 
of  one  of  his  parishioners,  in  the  Church  of  St.  Augustine.  For  this  viola 
tion  of  the  municipal  ordinance,  he  was  brought  before  the  court  and  fined. 
Conceiving  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  secured  to  the  people 
of  the  states  the  enjoyment  of  religious  liberty  ;  and  that  it  inhibited  the  states 
from  imposing  any  restraint  on  such  liberty,  he  sued  out  a  writ  of  error. 
The  case  was  brought  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  The 
writ  was  dismissed,  for  want  of  jurisdiction.  The  ordinance  complained  of 
was  a  gross  violation  of  the  liberty  of  free  celebration  of  one  of  the  most 
sacred  rites  of  the  Christian  religion,  but  the  Court  could  give  no  relief. 

Drawing  a  parallel  between  the  case  of  Mr.  Permoli  and  that  of  Mr. 
Cummings,  Mr.  Justice  Miller,  said:  "An  ordinance  of  a  mere  local  cor 
poration  forbids  a  priest,  loyal  to  his  government,  from  performing  what  he 
believed  to  be  the  necessary  rites  of  his  church  over  the  body  of  his  departed 
friend.  This  Court  said  it  could  give  him  no  relief. 

"  In  this  case  [Mr.  Cummings']  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Missouri, 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  people  of  that  state,  adopted  by  their  popular 
vote,  declares  that  no  priest  of  any  church  shall  exercise  his  ministerial  func 
tions,  unless  he  shows  by  his  oath  that  he  has  borne  a  true  allegiance  to  his 
government.  This  Court  now  holds  this  constitutional  provision  void,  on 
the  ground  that  the  Federal  Constitution  forbids  it.  I  leave  the  two  cases  to 
speak  for  themselves." 

In  justice  to  the  distinguished  judges  who  joined  their  dissent  with  that  of 
Mr.  Justice  Miller,  it  must  be  said  that  they  did  not  pass  any  judgment  in  ap 
proval  of  the  policy  which  inspired  the  amendments  to  the  Missouri  con 
stitution.  This  was  within  the  domain  of  legislation  and  statesmanship, 
and  not  for  the  judiciary.  The  reader  is  left  to  presume,  from  Mr.  Justice 
Miller's  words,  "  I  leave  the  two  cases  to  speak  for  themselves,"  that  there 
was  a  conflict  between  the  earlier  and  later  opinions  of  the  Supreme  Court ; 
and  that,  since  the  effect  of  the  state  constitution  in  Mr.  Cummings'  case 
was  to  violate  religious  liberty,  therefore,  the  later  opinion  was  unsound. 


IN  RE  GARLAND.  255 

No  two  opinions  of  this  exalted  tribunal  better  illustrate  the  fact  that  no 
public  man  can  wholly  divest  himself  of  a  tendency  to  form  his  judgment  of 
great  issues,  according  to  the  imperceptible  bias  resulting  from  their  discus 
sion  amid  the  every-day  affairs  of  life.  The  argumentation  which  is  faulty 
to  one  mind  is  quite  logical  to  another.  The  writer  sees  no  conflict  what 
ever  between  the  decisions  in  the  two  cases.  Yet,  they  are  so  conflicting  to  Mr. 
Justice  Miller,  that  he  leaves  them  "  to  speak  for  themselves."  The  writer 
sees  no  religious  question  in  Mr.  Cummings'  case.  Nor  is  there  any  in  Mr. 
Permoli's  case.  He  only  sees  a  violation  of  civil  rights  in  each  case  —  forbid 
den  in  one  case  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  which  should 
have  been,  and  perhaps  was,  forbidden  in  the  other  case  by  the  state  consti 
tution.  It  has  been  said  by  the  distinguished  William  Whiting,  in  his  able 
work  on  the  "War  Powers  of  the  United  States,"  that  — "  Upon  political 
discussions  .  .  .  the  judges  are  usually  at  variance  with  each  other ; 
and  the  views  of  the  majority  will  prevail  until  the  majority  is  shifted." 
This  was  said  many  years  before  the  Electoral  Commission  discussed  the 
political  question  of  the  Presidential  succession  in  1877,  and  before  the  re 
versal  of  the  legal  tender  opinion. 

Akin  to  the  proscription  case  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cummings,  was  that  of 
Augustus  H.  Garland.  It  was  brought  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  July 
2,  1862.  Mr.  Garland  has  but  recently  resigned  a  seat  in  the  Senate,  to 
enter  President  Cleveland's  Cabinet  as  Attorney-General.  He  brings  to  that 
office  the  highest  abilities  of  the  statesman,  combined  with  a  wrealth  of 
learning  and  legal  acumen  that  has  rarely  been  equaled  by  any  of  his  prede 
cessors.  In  the  year  1860,  he  was  admitted  to  practice  as  an  attorney  and 
counselor  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  He  took  the  official 
oath  of  that  day.  Then,  as  now,  he  was  a  citizen  of  the  State  of  Arkansas. 
In  May,  1861,  that  state  passed  its  ordinance  of  secession.  With  the  ma 
jority  of  his  fellow-citizens,  he  went  with  his  State.  He  was  elected  a 
member  of  the  Confederate  Congress,  first  to  the  lower  house,  and  after 
ward  to  the  Senate.  Desiring  to  do  everything  in  his  power  to  restore  the 
Federal  relations  after  the  Confederate  surrender,  he  obtained  a  full  pardon 
and  amnesty  from  President  Johnson,  in  July,  1865.  The  conditions  pre 
scribed  therein  were,  to  support  the  United  States  Constitution,  and  obey  all 
laws  and  proclamations  abolishing  slavery.  He  complied  with  the  conditions. 
In  pursuit  of  his  professional  business  he  sought  to  renew  his  practice  in  the 
Supreme  Court.  He  found  himself  disbarred,  notwithstanding  his  full  par 
don  and  amnesty.  He  was  disbarred  because  of  a  rule  of  court,  made 
according  to  the  requirements  of  an  act  of  Congress  passed  on  Jan.  24, 
1865.  This  rule  required  all  attorneys  and  counselors,  before  being  allowed 
to  practice  in  any  United  States  courts,  to  take  what  is  known  as  the  "  Iron- 
Clad"  oath,  prescribed  by  the  act  of  July  2,  1862.  He  made  application 
to  be  allowed  to  resume  his  practice.  He  rested  his  right  on  two  grounds  : 


256  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

1.  That  the  act  of  Jan.  24,  1865,  so  far  as  it  affected  his  status  in  the 
court,  was  unconstitutional  and  void  ;  and 

2.  That  if  it  were  held  to  be  constitutional,  nevertheless,  the  pardon  of 
the   President   removed   any   disabilities   that   the  statute  was  intended  to 
enforce. 

Mr.  Garland,  exercising  the  common  right  of  every  citizen,  filed  a  brief 
in  his  own  behalf.  He  was  ably  seconded  by  his  counsel,  Reverdy  Johnson, 
and  M.  H.  Carpenter.  Mr.  R.  H.  Marr  was  in  the  same  position  as 
Mr.  Garland.  He  also  filed  a  brief  in  the  case.  Mr.  Attorney-General 
Speed  and  Henry  Stanbery,  who  was  afterward  Attorney-General,  appeared 
for  the  government  against  the  petitioners.  The  case  was  thoroughly  ar 
gued.  Mr.  Justice  Field  delivered  the  opinion.  The  act  of  July  2,  1862,  is 
familiar. 

The  act  of  1865  was  a  supplementary  prohibition,  applying  to  attorneys 
and  counselors  at  law  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States.  Addressing  him 
self  to  the  case,  Mr.  Justice  Field  said:  "The  question  is  not  as  to  the 
powrer  of  Congress  to  prescribe  qualifications ;  but  whether  that  power  has 
been  exercised  for  the  infliction  of  punishment  against  the  prohibition  of  the 
Constitution.  That  this  result,"  said  he,  "  cannot  be  effected  directly  by  a 
state,  under  the  form  of  creating  qualifications,  we  have  held 'in  the  case  of 
Cummings  vs.  The  State  of  Missouri,  and  the  reasoning  by  which  that 
conclusion  was  reached  applies  equally  to  similar  actions  on  the  part  of  Con 
gress."  The  effect  of  the  pardon  was  also  considered  ;  but  the  decision  did 
not  rest  on  the  pardon.  The  pardon  would  blot  out  all  the  guilt  of  an 
offense,  so  that  in  the  eye  of  the  law  no  offense  had  ever  been  committed. 
It  removed  all  penalties  and  disabilities.  It  restored  all  civil  rights.  The 
only  limits  on  the  operation  of  a  pardon  were  that  it  could  not  restore  offices 
forfeited,  or  property  or  interests  vested  in  others  by  judicial  proceedings. 
The  court  decided  that  the  requirement  to  take  the  oath  was  void,  although  in 
form  it  was  a  regulation  which  would  have  been  valid,  had  not  the  intention 
been  to  have  it  operate  as  a  punishment  on  those  who  could  not  subscribe  to 
it.  The  rule  of  the  court  which  required  it  was  rescinded,  —  it  "  having 
been  unadvisedly  adopted."  Mr.  Garland  was  thereupon  admitted  to  practice 
in  the  court,  where  he  now  stands  as  the  leader  of  its  bar. 

It  is  obvious  from  the  reasoning  of  the  court  in  these  two  cases,  that  the 
iron-clad  oath  was  contrary  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  even  in 
the  matter  of  Federal  offices.  The  American  citizen  could  not,  at  that  time, 
be  disqualified  for  Federal  office,  as  a  penalty  for  past  conduct  or  opinion. 
It  was,  in  fact,  proscriptive  legislation.  Such  legislation  has  the  effect  of  an 
attainder,  or  of  an  ex  post  facto  crimination.  Both  are  unconstitutional. 
Now,  however,  this  is  not  altogether  the  case.  After  these  decisions  were 
made,  a  radical  Congress,  still  intent  on  proscribing  the  best  classes  of  the 
Southern  people  from  all  participation  in  the  affairs  of  the  Nation,  forced 


REPEAL  OF  THE  IRON-CLAD  OATH.  257 

the  Fourteenth  Amendment  into  the  Constitution.  They  made  its  adoption 
a  condition  for  the  restoration  of  Federal  relations  to  states  that  were  held 
under  the  arbitrary  rule  of  semi-military  governments.  The  third  section  of 
that  amendment  is  clearly  a  bill  of  attainder,  although  in  form  a  declaration 
of  qualification  for  members  of  Congress,  Presidential  electors,  and  state  and 
Federal  officers.  The  second  section  is  of  the  same  character.  It  grants,  or 
attempts  to  grant,  power  to  the  state  to  proscribe  by  ex  post  facto  laws  cer 
tain  classes  of  citizens,  and  to  deprive  them  of  their  elective  franchise. 

This  amendment  introduced  into  the  organic  law  a  principle  so  abhorrent 
to  liberty  and  justice,  that  from  time  immemorial  it  had  been  regarded  by  the 
American  people  and  their  ancestors  as  one  of  the  vilest  which  could  be  re 
sorted  to,  under  the  worst  forms  of  tyranny.  It  was  thought  that  no  free 
people  could  submit  to  it  under  any  circumstances.  But  there  it  stands.  It 
is  to-day  a  monument  to  the  satanic  malice  of  the  radical  party.  It  is  a  warn 
ing  to  succeeding  generations  of  the  excesses  of  partisan  lust.  It  is  the  high 
est  glory  that  any  party  can  claim,  that  it  opposed  with  all  its  might,  this 
amendment  that  is  so  obnoxious  to  every  other  feature  of  our  government. 
It  is  to  the  glory  of  Mr.  Speaker  Randall  and  the  Democrats  who  followed 
him,  that  he  led  them  successfully  in  an  encounter  against  the  infamous  Force 
bill  which  was  intended  to  crystallize  into  acts  of  hate  these  codes  of  spite. 
The  scope  of  this  amendment  has  been  curtailed  by  the  recent  partial  repeal 
of  the  iron-clad  oath.  After  long  and  repeated  efforts  to  that  end  in  Congress, 
this  much  was  secured.  It  is  one  of  the  writer's  gratifications  that  the  fight 
he  commenced  almost  single-handed  years  ago  against  that  attainder  oath, 
he  carried  on  and  on,  until  in  the  very  last  Congress  he  forced  a  repeal  of 
some  of  its  worst  tests,  under  a  suspension  of  the  rules  and  by  a  two-thirds 
vote.  But  an  account  of  those  efforts  will  be  given  in  another  place. 

The  iron-clad  oath  was  the  worst  and  the  most  wide-reaching  of  all  the  un 
constitutional  proscriptions  in  the  South.  Property  might  be  and  was  often 
seized  and  confiscated  ;  but  still  there  was  left  the  talent  and  ability  to  replace 
the  rapine.  But  in  the  case  of  the  oath,  the  proscription  lasted  for  all  time. 
It  excluded  almost  the  whole  talent  and  worth  of  nearly  one-half  the  people  of 
the  Union.  It  forbade  them  any  honorable  participation  in  their  own  gov 
ernment.  Was  it  any  wonder  that  the  Democratic  party  did  all  that  it 
could  to  prevent  such  terrible  outrages  and  violations  of  natural  and  constitu 
tional  rights  ?  Yet,  on  the  pretense  of  patriotic  defense  of  the  law  and  of 
cherished  principles  of  government,  the  party  of  such  tyrannical  measures 
had,  and  still  has,  the  unblushing  audacity  to  charge  that  the  Northern 
Democrats  aided  and  sympathized  with  secession.  Had  it  not  been  for  the 
Democratic  party  there  would  not  be  to-day  a  Union  of  states.  There  would 
be  only  the  unity  of  a  government  by  the  party  of  ostracism  and  tyranny. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


FOREIGN  RELATIONS  DURING  THE  CIVIL  WAR. 

GREAT  BRITAIN  RECOGNIZES  THE  CONFEDERACY  — BELLIGERENT  RIGHTS  CON 
CEDED  -JUDGE  BLACK'S  CIRCULAR  LETTER  — MR.  BUCHANAN'S  ADMINIS 
TRATION  VINDICATING  NATIONAL  JURISDICTION  — MR.  SEWARD  SPEAKING 
FOR  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  ADMINISTRATION—  APPREHENSIONS— A  FEATHER 
IN  THE  SCALE  — THE  SWITZERLAND  CASE -EARLY  TREATIES  WITH  EUROPE. 
RECOGNIZING  OUR  INDEPENDENT  AND  SOVEREIGN  STATES— THE  SPANISH 
AMERICAN  STATES  — FREEDOM  OF  THE  STATES  — MEDIAEVAL  RULES  OF 
MARITIME  LAW  — PIRACY  — CONTRABAND  OF  WAR  — TREATIES  AS  TO  CON 
TRABAND—THE  MARCY  PROPOSITIONS  — THE  PARIS  CONFERENCE  OF  1856 
AND  ITS  DECLARATION  — THE  UNITED  STATES  AMENDMENT  OF  THE  DE 
CLARATION— THE  AUTHOR'S  RESOLUTIONS  AND  SPEECH  — THE  DEMOCRACY 
OF  THE  SEA  — EARL  RUSSELL'S  PROPOSITION  — MR.  SE WARD'S  DILEMMA  AND- 
RESPONSE  — THE  CONFEDERATE  RIGHTS  AS  BELLIGERENTS  — CANADA  RE 
BELLION  IN  1838  —  OUR  BLOCKADE  MUST  BE  RESPECTED  — OUR  NAVAL  ARM 
AMENT—MR.  SEWARD  AS  A  STATESMAN. 

THE  most  important  question  in  regard  to  our  foreign  relations  dur 
ing  the  civil  war  period,  was  that  of  the  status  of  the  seceded  states. 
This  question  received  early  attention.  It  was  discussed  not  only 
by  the  Federal  and  Confederate  Cabinets,  but  also  by  the  Cabinets 
of  the  leading  European  nations.  By  a  tacit  understanding  with  the  other 
powers,  England  took  the  leading  part  in  determining  this  and  all  other 
questions  of  an  international  character  growing  out  of  our  war.  The  result 
was,  that  as  early  in  the  struggle  as  May  13,  1861,  the  Confederacy  was 
recognized  by  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  in  a  proclamation  of  neutrality,  as  a 
belligerent  power.  To  prevent  such  a  recognition,  Mr.  Black,  Secretary  of 
State  in  the  administration  of  President  Buchanan,  had,  on  Feb.  28, 
1861,  addressed  a  circular  letter  to  each  of  our  ministers  at  the  European 
courts.  In  this  letter  Mr.  Black  stated  that  it  was  not  improbable  "that 
persons  claiming  to  represent  the  states  which  had  attempted  to  throw  off 
their  Federal  obligations,  would  seek  a  recognition  of  their  independence  " 
by  the  governments  to  which  the  ministers  to  whom  the  letter  was  addressed 


FIRST  VIEWS  OF  CONFEDERATE  INDEPENDENCE.  259 

were  accredited.  "  In  the  event,"  he  said,  "  of  such  an  effort  being  made, 
you  are  expected  by  the  President  to  use  such  means  as  may  in  your  judg 
ment  be  proper  and  necessary  to  prevent  its  success."  He  called  attention 
to  the  reasons  set  forth  in  the  President's  message,  then  recently  addressed  to 
the  Congress,  showing  that  the  states  had  no  constitutional  power  to  secede 
from  the  Union  ;  and  that  the  Southern  States  had  no  sufficient  grounds  "  to 
justify  the  revolutionary  act  of  severing  the  bond  "  which  connected  them 
with  their  sister  states.  "  This  government,"  he  said,  "has  not  relin 
quished  its  constitutional  jurisdiction  within  the  territory  of  these  states,  and 
does  not  desire  to  do  so."  For  this  reason,  said  the  secretary,  "  it  must  be 
very  evident  that  it  is  the  right  of  this  government  to  ask  of  all  foreign  powers 
that  the  latter  shall  take  no  steps  which  may  tend  to  encourage  the  revolu 
tionary  movement  of  the  seceding  states,  or  increase  the  danger  of  disaffection 
in  those  which  still  remain  loyal."  Attention  was  called  to  the  facts  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  had  been  elected  as  the  candidate  of  the  Republican  or  anti-slavery 
party ;  that  the  preceding  discussion  had  been  confined  almost  entirely  to 
topics  connected,  directly  or  indirectly,  with  negro  slavery ;  and  that  the 
electoral  votes  of  the  Northern  states  (excepting  three  in  New  Jersey)  had 
been  cast  for  the  anti-slavery  candidate,  while  the  sentiment  of  the  South 
was  the  other  way.  Our  ministers  were  to  hold  out  the  hope  that  entire  har 
mony  would  soon  be  restored.  They  were  to  point  out  to  foreign  govern 
ments  that  any  acknowledgment  by  them  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States 
would  tend  to  disturb  the  friendly  relations,  diplomatic  and  commercial, 
then  existing  between  those  governments  and  the  United  States,  and  prove 
adverse  to  their  own  interests.  Thus  early  did  the  administration  of  Presi 
dent  Buchanan  take  the  important  step  of  instructing  our  representatives 
abroad  to  use  their  best  efforts  against  any  recognition  of  the  Confederate 
States.  No  uncertain  grounds  were  taken.  The  secession  movement  was 
characterized  as  unjustifiable  and  revolutionary.  National  jurisdiction  was 
asserted.  The  consequences  of  foreign  recognition  were  plainly  stated.  It 
was  still  hoped  that  the  seceding  states  would,  in  a  short  time,  submit  their 
grievances,  if  any,  to  peaceful  arbitration.  Yet  this  Administration  was 
afterward  denounced  because  it  did  not,  at  that  time,  destroy  this  hope  by 
resorting  to  the  sword  at  once. 

Upon  the  9th  of  March  following,  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State  in 
President  Lincoln's  administration,  addressed  a  circular  letter  to  the  same 
ministers.  He  called  attention  to  Mr.  Black's  previous  instructions.  He 
reiterated  them.  He  expressed  the  same  hope  of  a  speedy  adjustment  of  our 
troubles,  "  by  a  firm,  yet  just  and  liberal  bearing,  co-operating  with  the  delib 
erate  and  loyal  action  of  the  American  people."  Our  ministers  were  to 
"truthfully  urge  "  upon  foreign  governments  that  the  "present  disturbances  '* 
had  "their  origin  only  in  popular  passions,  excited  under  novel  circum 
stances  of  very  transient  character."  In  this  vital  matter,  the  Republican 


260  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Administration  pursued  throughout  the  war  the  policy  of  the  last  Democratic 
Administration.  England,  as  stated,  took  the  lead  in  ignoring  all  the  friendly 
considerations  urged  by  Mr.  Seward  and  his  predecessor  against  the  recog 
nition  of  the  seceding  states.  Much  had  been  expected  from  her  supposed 
friendship  for  the  United  States  and  announced  abhorrence  of  negro  slavery. 
But  this  expectation  was  disappointed  by  Her  Britannic  Majesty.  She  an 
nounced  by  the  proclamation  that  her  government  had  assumed  a  neutral  atti 
tude  in  regard  to  our  contest.  Her  Majesty's  government  thereby  recognized 
the  Confederate  States  as  a  belligerent  power.  This  recognition  gave  great 
encouragement  to  the  Confederates.  It  had  a  corresponding  effect  in  pro 
longing  the  war,  with  its  enormous  outpouring  of  fraternal  blood  and  com 
mon  treasure. 

In  perusing  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  this  period,  the  reader  can 
see  prominent  in  its  pages,  a  great  apprehension  of  foreign  intervention  in 
our  affairs.  It  seemed,  at  times,  as  if  a  feather  would  have  cast  the  scales 
against  us.  Our  form  of  government  was  not  favored  by  those  who  created 
and  directed  the  policies  of  the  European  nations.  The  mere  existence  of 
such  a  free  and  popular  government  was  regarded  as  a  standing  menace  to 
monarchical  institutions.  The  advocates  of  these  institutions  had  long 
been  predicting,  what  they  wished, —  our  downfall.  There  was,  therefore, 
good  reason  to  apprehend  that  nothing  but  discretion  would  restrain  the 
anti-republican  parties  in  England  and  other  European  powers  from  forcing 
their  governments  into  ultra  measures  against  the  Union.  It  was  discretion, 
more  than  regard  for  comity,  that  prevented  intervention.  In  1848,  the 
republican  movement  which  had  long  been  fomenting  in  Europe  had  given 
a  shock  to  monarchical  institutions.  This  did  not  incline  the  ruling  classes 
to  look  with  disfavor  on  the  dismemberment  of  our  Union.  Nevertheless, 
the  supporters  of  monarchy  must  have  seen  the  impolicy  of  giving  counte 
nance  to  the  disruption  of  a  great  government  by  revolutionary  measures. 
This  consideration  operated  in  our  favor.  It  had  a  restraining  influence 
on  the  powers  which  might  have  actively  favored  secession  in  the  American 
Republic. 

Fourteen  years  before  our  trouble  there  was  secession  in  the  Swiss  Re 
public.  There  was  an  attempted  intervention  in  its  favor  by  the  great  Euro 
pean  powers.  At  the  opening  of  the  Federal  Tagsatzung  (Swiss  diet) 
on  July  5,  1847,  tne  presiding  officer,  Ulrich  Ochsenbein,  spoke  in  regard 
to  the  threatened  recognition  of  the  seceding  cantons  by  England,  France, 
Austria,  Prussia,  Russia,  and  other  powers.  He  said  on  that  trying  oc 
casion  :  "  No  foreign  intervention  in  our  domestic  affairs  should  be  toler 
ated.  Switzerland  never  solicited  any  foreign  power  to  guarantee  the  con 
stitutional  compact  of  her  twenty-two  cantons.  The  sovereignty  of  her 
government  never  has  been  questioned  ;  it  was  her  territory  alone  which  the 
allied  powers  at  Vienna  declared  inviolable.  Should  she  be  subjected  to 


THE  BRAVE  HELVETII  AND  THEIR  REPUBLIC.  261 

the  intermeddlings  of  any  foreign  power,  we  would  prove  to  the  world 
that  her  arms  are  strong  when  raised  in  defense  of  our  rights  ;  and  that  in 
such  a  contest  they  would  be  powerfully  supported  by  the  sympathies  of 
every  people  seeking  to  imitate  our  political  institutions." 

There  was  then  grave  reason  in  that  Mountain  Republic  to  apprehend 
such  intervention  as  we  feared  in  our  Civil  War.  Two  days  before,  the 
French  Premier,  Guizot,  had  sent  a  note  to  Count  Bois  le  Compte,  the  French 
Ambassador  in  Switzerland.  In  it,  he  clearly  indicated  a  design  to  favor  the 
Swiss  secessionists.  The  grounds  on  which  the  recognition  of  the  seceding 
cantons  was  to  be  declared  were  so  similar  to  those  which  might  have  been 
applied  to  us  by  any  European  power,  that  no  apology  is  necessary  for  now 
presenting  them.  The  position  assumed  by  France,  as  stated  by  Guizot  in 
his  note,  was  this  : 

The  Federal  Congress  of  Switzerland  has  no  right  to  submit  a  minority 
of  cantons  to  the  will  of  the  majority,  inasmuch  as  all  treaties  acknowledge 
Switzerland,  not  as  a  centralized  power,  but  as  a  Confederacy  of  states, 
which  have  each  reserved,  as  a  check  on  the  Federal  Congress,  their 
supreme  right  of  state  sovereignty."  France,  therefore,  in  conjunction 
with  the  other  Allied  Powers  of  Europe,  protested  against  any  interpretation 
of  the  Swiss  compact  that  would,  as  M.  Guizot  stated  the  case,  destroy 
the  individuality  of  the  cantons.  Any  other  interpretation  would  lead  to 
the  total  abrogation  of  the  Federal  Constitution  of  Switzerland.  It  would 
consequently  invalidate  the  treaties  made  under  its  provisions.  On  this 
slender  pretext  the  Allied  Powers  were  in  favor  of  aiding  the  Swiss  se 
cessionists  to  destroy  the  only  republic  in  Europe.  Two  years  before, 
England  had  expressed  a  willingness  to  accept  any  change  of  the  Swiss 
government  that  the  Allied  Powers  might  approve.  Then,  as  in  our  own 
case,  the  London  Times  was  vehemently  in  favor  of  foreign  intervention.  It 
extolled  the  Secession  League.  It  denounced  the  Federal  government.  The 
Morning  Post,  true  to  its  anti-republican  policy,  styled  the  Federal  army  of 
Switzerland,  "  the  army  of  invasion."  The  brave  little  republic  was  not 
intimidated.  It  remained  unmoved.  It  still  stands,  like  its  mountains  — 
a  monument  to  patriotism  and  liberty. 

Similar  to  that  of  the  Swiss,  would  have  been  our  defiance  to  the 
Powers  of  Europe,  had  foreign  intervention  come  upon  us.  We  did  not 
court  a  greater  conflict  than  that  which  seemed  to  engage  all  our  strength. 
But  surely,  if  the  Helvetii  could  talk  to  Europe  in  the  strain  quoted,  we 
need  not  have  been  apprehensive  of  intervention  by  the  powers  of  that  con 
tinent.  They  could  have  made  the  same  case  in  regard  to  our  seceding 
states  that  they  made  in  favor  of  the  seceding  cantons.  Indeed,  it  was 
always  a  matter  of  quiet  surprise  to  the  writer,  that  none  of  the  powers  sug 
gested  it.  England  did  not  do  so,  although  she  might  have  discovered  a 
foundation  for  the  theory  that  our  government  was  "  a  Confederacy  of  States, 


262  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

which  had  each  reserved,  as  a  check  on  the  Federal  Congress,  their  supreme 
right  of  state  sovereignty."  She  need  have  gone  no  further  than  our  treaty 
with  Great  Britain,  by  which,  in  the  year  1783,  His  Britannic  Majesty  was 
required  to  admit,  and  did  admit,  the  independence  of  the  United  States. 
The  first  article  of  that  treaty  is  in  these  words : 

"  His  Britannic  Majesty  acknowledges  the  said  United  States,  viz.,  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts  Bay,  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations, 
Connecticut,  New-York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  to  be  free,  sover 
eign  and  independent  states  ;  that  he  treats  with  them  as  such,  and  for  him 
self,  his  heirs,  and  successors,  relinquishes  all  claims  to  the  government, 
property,  and  territorial  rights  of  the  same,  and  every  part  thereof." 

This  is  the  only  form  of  our  independence  that  England  had  ever  recog 
nized.  She  expressly  recognized  a  Confederacy  of  Sovereign  States.  In  our 
earlier  treaties  with  France  the  like  enumeration  of  sovereign  states  is  made. 
And  although  we  afterwards  entered  into  a  "  more  perfect  Union"  than  the 
old  Confederacy,  the  question  of  the  limitations  on  state  sovereignty  was 
not  settled  until  the  unanswerable  argument  of  war  decided  it,  so  far  as  for 
eign  powers  are  concerned,  in  favor  of  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
No  cognizance  by  treaty  has  been  taken  by  either  of  these  powers,  of  the 
change  in  our  form  of  government  from  a  Confederacy  of  Sovereign  States 
to  a  Union  of  Sovereign  States.  This  omission  would  have  been  a  sufficient 
diplomatic  pretext  for  British  intervention,  if  that  government  had  followed 
the  precedent  of  the  Swiss  Republic  case.  Its  application  could  have  been 
urged,  not  only  from  the  article  of  the  treaty  above  quoted,  but  also  on  the 
doctrine  of  the  ultra  states  rights  school  of  Americans,  who  accepted  and 
advocated  the  view  that  the  states  are  supreme  in  all  matters  that  concern 
their  own  welfare.  The  writer  is  not  aware  that  Confederate  diplomacy 
ever  saw  the  application  of  that  precedent  to  the  status  of  the  seceded  states. 
But  whether  it  did  or  did  not,  our  foreign  correspondence  was  not  encum 
bered  with  the  question  of  state  sovereignty. 

Mr.  Seward  may  have  had  some  apprehension  of  such  a  question.  As 
early  as  March  26,  1861,  he  instructed  our  ministers  abroad  that  the  Presi 
dent  would  not  consent,  "  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  interpellation  of  any 
foreign  power  in  a  controversy  which  is  merely  a  domestic  one."  On  the 
6th  of  April  following,  he  said  this,  substantially,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Cor- 
win,  of  Ohio,  our  Minister  to  Mexico.  He  used  the  word  "  interpellation." 
No  more  comprehensive  word  could  be  used  to  express  the  national  policy. 
We  would  have  not  only  no  intervention,  but  no  intercession  for,  or  censure 
of,  those  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  had  arrayed  themselves  against  the 
national  government.  This  policy  was  modified  only  in  so  far  as  the  recog 
nition  of  Confederate  belligerent  rights  compelled.  But  that  recognition 
came  in  due  time  from  the  Federal  Government  itself,  as  an  incident  of  civil- 


COTTON,  AND  THE  BLOCKADE.  263 

Ized  warfare,  quite  as  much  as  from  the  action  of  foreign  powers.  After 
these  rights  had  been  admitted,  the  only  diplomatic  questions  of  great  im 
portance  with  which  the  United  States  had  to  deal,  were  those  affecting 
the  blockade  and  international  maritime  rights.  In  view  of  the  position 
•which  Mr.  Seward  took  on  assuming  office  in  respect  to  intervention,  no 
other  international  questions  than  those  could  have  arisen,  without  involving  a 
foreign  war.  Yet  the  possibility  of  such  a  war  was  never  overlooked  by 
that  statesman. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  note  here,  that  Mr.  Seward  did  not  lose  sight  of 
the  hope  of  relations  with  the  Spanish  American  republics,  which  would  soon 
assume  "  a  spirit  more  elevated  than  one  of  merely  commercial  and  con 
ventional  amity, —  a  spirit  disinterested  and  unambitious,  earnestly  Ameri 
can  in  the  continental  sense  of  the  word,  and  fraternal  in  no  affected  or  mere 
diplomatic  meaning  of  the  term."  "  These  states,"  said  he,  in  the  letter  to 
Mr.  Corwin  before  referred  to,  "hold  a  common  attitude  and  relation 
towards  all  other  nations.  .  .  .  It  is  the  interest  of  them  all  to  be  friends, 
as  they  are  neighbors,  and  to  mutually  maintain  and  support  each  other,  so 
far  as  may  be  consistent  with  the  individual  sovereignty  which  each  of  them 
rightly  enjoys,  equally  against  all  disintegrating  agencies  within,  and  all 
foreign  influences  or  power  without  their  borders."  This  was  the  only 
movement  for  foreign  aid  or  sympathy  made  by  Mr.  Seward  during  the  war. 
He  courted  no  European  alliance.  He  was  a  continental  American.  He 
subsequently  gave  proof  of  the  sincerity  of  his  sympathy  with  our  sister 
republic  when  an  emperor  was  forced  upon  Mexico. 

It  was  supposed  by  many  that  a  dearth  of  American  cotton  might  induce 
England  to  seek  a  supply  of  that  staple  by  breaking  the  blockade  of  our 
Southern  sea-ports.  Up  to  the  period  of  the  Civil  War  the  textile  manu 
factories  of  Europe,  and  especially  of  England,  were  large  consumers  of 
American  cotton.  The  blockade  had  cut  off  this  supply.  Mr.  Seward  was 
aware  that  great  efforts  were  made  by  manufacturers  to  induce  the  English 
government  to  disregard  the  blockade.  He  was  therefore  most  persistent  in 
the  assertion  that  the  force  of  the  Confederacy  would  soon  be  broken.  Each 
disaster  to  our  arms  intensified  this  assertion.  But,  at  the  same  time,  each 
month  of  the  war  saw  great  accessions  to  our  naval  force.  It  was  on  the 
ocean  only  that  foreign  intervention  could  affect  anything ;  and  there,  with 
our  commerce  fast  disappearing,  and  the  nearest  foreign  base  of  operation 
three  thousand  miles  away,  we  had,  by  reason  of  the  augmentation  of  our 
navy,  comparatively  little  to  fear.  It  was  probably  owing  to  these  consid 
erations,  as  much  as  from  respect  for  international  ethics,  that  England,  and 
perhaps  also  France,  did  not  attempt  to  raise  the  blockade  of  the  Southern 
ports. 

After  all,  cotton  was  not  so  much  the  monarch  it  had  been  reputed.  It 
was  soon  discovered  that  it  might  be  produced  in  sufficient  quantity,  if  not 


264  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  as  good  quality,  elsewhere  than  in  the  Southern  States.  On  Dec.  6, 
1 86 1,  cotton  in  Liverpool  was  not  quoted  at  half  the  price  it  commanded 
in  our  own  market.  The  stock  in  England  on  that  date  was  606,818  bales, 
although  there  was  a  deficiency  of  200, ooo  American  bales.  This  deficit 
was  more  than  made  up  by  the  increasing  production  of  India.  On  the  cor 
responding  date  of  the  previous  year,  the  stock  of  cotton  in  England  was 
only  579,620  bales.  The  imports  of  India  cotton  had  increased  to  85  per 
cent,  for  eleven  months  of  1861,  and  in  the  last  four  of  these  months  the  in 
crease  arose  to  160  per  cent.  At  this  rate  of  increase,  India  alone  could  sup 
ply  England  the  following  year  with  1,350,000  bales  of  cotton,  not  to  speak 
of  the  increasing  production  of  Egypt  and  Brazil,  which  ordinarily  exported 
about  200,000  bales.  There  was,  therefore,  not  such  a  dearth  of  cotton  as 
would  justify  British  statesmen  in  risking  a  war  with  the  then  first  naval 
power  of  the  world,  in  order  to  obtain  it  from  the  Southern  States. 

Aside  from  the  question  of  Confederate  recognition,  the  complications 
requiring  diplomatic  skill  were  such  as  usually  occur  in  war. 

By  long  established  policy,  the  United  States  Government  was  committed 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Freedom  of  the  Seas.  This  doctrine  asserted  that  the 
commerce  of  the  world  should  be  free  from  interruption  by  belligerent  powers. 
Was  there  any  exception  ?  Only  in  so  far  as  an  actual  and  effective  block 
ade  of  the  ports  of  either  power  might  prevent  an  entrance  to  shipping.  Up 
to  the  time  of  the  Civil  War,  our  government  had  contented  itself  with  the 
assertion  of  this  doctrine  in  its  own  behalf.  Some  efforts  had,  from  time  to 
time,  been  made  by  our  statesmen  to  induce  England  and  other  maritime 
powers  to  accept  it  as  a  rule  of  international  law.  But  this  was  without 
success. 

American  policy  has  always  moved  on  the  line  of  humane  progress.  In 
the  management  of  our  foreign  relations,  it  has  generally  been  the  object  of 
American  statesmen  to  encourage  the  development  of  international  commerce. 
We  strove  to  relieve  its  argosies  from  the  operation  of  maritime  laws  which 
pertained  more  to  the  piratical,  barbaric  past  than  to  modern  civilization. 
Long  before  the  era  of  Independence,  the  American  colonies  had  made  a  won 
derful  advance  in  commercial  enterprise.  Their  commerce  grew  in  spite  of 
the  most  adverse  circumstances.  They  encountered  not  only  the  harshest 
opposition  of  the  "  mother  country,"  but,  also,  the  enforcement  of  the  worst 
restrictions  of  international  codes  which  recognized  maritime  war  as  the  most 
important  and  honorable  of  oceanic  enterprises.  The  rules  of  these  codes  were 
developed  in  mediaeval  times  by  the  Gothic  rovers  of  the  seas  on  misapplied 
principles  of  Roman  military  law.  These  rules  recognized  no  maritime 
rights  that  were  not  accompanied  by  the  power  to  enforce  them.  There 
was  no  jus  gentium  without  the  required  force.  The  quarter-deck  was  the 
prize  court,  the  captor  was  the  judge.  In  short,  almost  to  the  present  cen 
tury,  the  code  maritime  of  the  great  naval  powers  of  Europe  was  little  better 


THE  BRITISH  CODE  MARITIME.  265 

« 

than  a  system  of  legalized  piracy.  When  England  arrogated  to  herself  the 
title  of  "Mistress  of  the  Seas,"  the  less  formidable  maritime  nations  began 
under  her  aggressions,  and  the  advancing  civilization,  to  recognize  the  pro 
priety  of  relaxing  the  harsher  rules  of  the  mediaeval  codes.  Amendments 
were  gradually  adopted  by  them.  England,  however,  long  maintained  the 
piratical  practice  of  impressing  the  citizens  of  other  nations  into  her  naval 
service.  She  did  not  even  allow  them  the  alternative  of  walking  the  plank. 
She  not  seldom  forced  them  to  fight  against  their  own  flag.  As  for  the 
cargoes  of  foreign  ships  navigating  distant  seas,  they  were  confiscated  with 
out  a  moment's  hesitation  or  inquiry,  without  regard  to  the  relations  of  the 
governments  concerned.  In  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  the 
"  Spanish  Main"  was  a  favorite  source  of  ill-gotten  wealth  for  the  buccaneer 
ing  fleets  of  Great  Britain.  At  a  later  period,  the  general  seizure  practice 
of  these  fleets  began  to  be  limited  to  ships  of  the  enemy  and  u  contraband  " 
goods.  Writers  on  the  law  of  nations  had,  from  the  time  of  Grotius,  asserted 
that  its  rules  did  not  countenance  the  piratical  practices  of  the  times.  This 
protest  of  law  made  little  difference,  however,  on  the  Spanish  Main.  But 
in  course  of  time  a  practice  obtained,  under  which,  in  merchant  traffic, 
goods  "  contraband  of  war"  would  alone  be  regarded  as  subject  to  seizure  in 
neutral  ships.  As  there  was  some  difference  of  opinion  among  commenta 
tors  in  respect  to  what  goods  were  contraband  by  the  law  of  nations,  and 
as  each  belligerent  power  was  in  the  habit  of  deciding  the  questions  as  they 
arose  according  to  its  own  strength  and  inclinations,  treaties  were  entered  into 
by  which  the  contracting  parties  came  to  an  understanding  in  the  matter. 
By  the  decisions  of  the  courts  maritime,  in  course  of  time  the  rules  of  inter 
national  rights  and  duties  became  fixed.  Under  these  decisions,  it  appears 
there  are  two  classes  of  contraband  of  war,  namely,  goods  which  neutrals 
are  prohibited  from  carrying  during  war  to  the  belligerent  parties,  and  per 
sons  to  whom  they  are  forbidden  to  give  passage. 

From  the  first  day  of  its  independence,  the  United  States  Government, 
adopted  the  policy  of  specifically  enumerating  in  treaties  not  only  the  goods 
but  the  persons  to  whom  the  law  of  contraband  should  apply.  Our  policy 
in  regard  to  men  and  goods  was  most  liberal.  The  Continental  Powers  of 
Europe  were  more  willing  than  England  to  meet  us  with  a  like  policy.  The 
latter  power  did  agree  to  a  schedule  of  contraband  goods  in  the  treaty  nego 
tiated  with  her  in  the  year  1794.  But  we  failed,  until  the  settlement  of  the 
"Trent  affair,"  to  bring  England  to  terms  in  regard  to  the  exemption  from 
capture  of  all  persons  except  military  enemies.  W^e  always  admitted  that 
the  latter,  when  found  by  a  belligerent  on  a  neutral  vessel,  are  subject  to  cap 
ture,  even  where  the  vessel  is  engaged  in  lawful  commerce. 

After  the  settlement  of  the  Trent  affair,  Mr.  Sumner  discussed  with  great 
ability  in  the  Senate,  the  maritime  policy  of  the  United  States.     He  said 
that   the   true   and   time-honored   American  policy  is   that  which  was  de- 
17 


266  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

..•• 

clared  by  Madison  and  Monroe  in  the  year  1805,  namely,  that  in  exercising 
the  right  of  search,  the  United  States  cannot  accede  to  the  claim  of  any 
nation  to  take  from  their  vessels,  on  the  high  seas,  any  description  of  per 
sons  except  soldiers  in  the  actual  service  of  the  enemy,  and  that  no  goods 
can  be  contraband  except  those  specially  mentioned  in  treaties.  All  other 
effects  may,  "  without  any  exception  and  in  perfect  liberty,  be  transported  to 
places  belonging  to  the  enemy,  excepting  only  places  which  shall  be  besieged, 
blockaded,  or  invested."  The  language  last  quoted  is  taken  from  our  treaty 
with  the  Netherlands.  This  treaty  was  negotiated  as  far  back  as  1782.  We 
enumerated  the  articles  that  were  to  be  contraband,  in  our  treaty  with  France 
in  1787*  Our  constant  effort  was  in  this  direction.  This  policy  is  exhibited 
in  every  .convention  made  with  the  Spanish- American  States,  beginning  with 
Columbia  in  1824. 

A  few  years  before  the  secession  troubles,  when  we  had  no  apprehension 
of  war  with  any  power,  the  United  States  Government,  in  the  spirit  of  our 
favorite  foreign  policy,  as  dictated  by  William  L.  Marcy,  submitted  to  the 
maritime  nations  of  Europe  certain  propositions.  These  were  to  be  by  them 
agreed  upon  as  permanent  principles  of  international  law.  This  was  in 
the  year  1854.  These  propositions  were  : 

First.  Free  ships  make  free  goods ;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  effects  or 
goods  belonging  to  subjects  or  citizens  of  a  power  or  state  at  war,  are  free 
from  capture  or  confiscation  when  found  onboard  of  neutral  vessels,  with  the 
exception  of  articles  contraband  of  war. 

Second.  The  property  of  neutrals  on  board  an  enemy's  vessel  is  not 
subject  to  confiscation,  unless  the  same  be  contraband  of  war. 

Third.     Blockades,  to  be  respected,  must  be  effective. 

Some  of  the  governments  expressed  a  willingness  to  accept  these  princi 
ples.  Others,  who  were  at  war,  preferred  to  await  the  termination  of  hos 
tilities  before  entering  upon  negotiations  respecting  them. 

On  the  1 6th  of  April,  1856,  a  congress,  consisting  of  several  maritime 
powers,  was  in  session  at  Paris  to  effect  some  liberal  modifications  of  the 
law  of  nations  in  regard  to  maritime  war.  On  the  same  day  the  plenipo 
tentiaries  of  the  great  powers  were  assembled.  These  were  from  Austria, 
France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  and  Turkey.  They  came 
to  an  agreement.  It  was  in  the  form  of  a  declaration,  on  these  principles  : 

First.     Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 

Second.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy's  goods,  with  the  exception  of 
contraband  of  war. 

Third.  Neutral  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  arc 
not  liable  to  capture  under  enemy's  flag. 

Fourth.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective  ;  that  is  to 
S2y__ maintained  by  forces  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of 
the  enemy. 


THE  PARIS  DECLARATION.  267 

These  four  principles  of  maritime  law  constitute  what  is  called,  in  diplo 
matic  language,  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

The  parties  to  this  agreement  pledged  themselves  to  invite  powers  which 
had  not  been  represented  in  that  congress  to  accede  to  the  declaration.  It 
was  agreed  that  the  declaration  should  be  binding  on  the  parties  to  it,  and  on 
those  who  might  accede  to  its  principles,  as  one  whole  and  indivisible  com 
pact.  It  was  further  agreed,  that  neither  the  original  nor  subsequently 
acceding  parties  should  enter  into  any  arrangement  on  the  application  of 
maritime  law  in  time  of  war,  without  stipulating  for  a  strict  observance  of  the 
four  principles  of  the  declaration. 

Up  to  the  year  1861,  forty-one  powers  had  acceded  to  the  Declaration  of 
Paris.  The  list  includes  almost  every  European  and  South  American  state. 
The  declaration  was  submitted,  in  1855,  by  the  governments  at  the  con- 
.gress,.to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  The  following  year,  about 
July  14,  1856,  Mr.  Marcy,  our  Secretary  of  State,  informed  them  that  the 
President,  Mr.  Pierce,  would  not  accede  to  it.  In  making  this  announce 
ment,  Mr.  Marcy,  in  behalf  of  his  government,  called  the  attention  of  the 
states  represented  at  Paris  to  the  following  points  : 

" Fir -st.  That  the  second  and  third  propositions  contained  in  the  Paris 
-Declaration  are  substantially  the  same  with  the  two  propositions  which  had 
before  been  submitted  to  the  maritime  states  by  the  President. 

"  Second.  That  the  Paris  Declaration,  with  the  conditions  annexed,  was 
inadmissible  by  the  United  States  in  three  respects,  namely:  ist,  That  the 
government  of  the  United  States  could  not  give  its  assent  to  the  first  proposi 
tion,  .  .  .  although  it  was  willing  to  accept  it  with  an  amendment 
which  should  exempt  the  private  property  of  individuals,  though  belonging 
to  belligerent  states,  from  seizure  or  conscription  by  national  vessels  in 
maritime  war.  2d,  That  for  this  reason  the  stipulation  annexed  to  the 
declaration,  viz. :  that  the  propositions  must  be  taken  altogether  or  rejected 
altogether,  without  modification,  could  not  be  allowed.  3d,  That  the  fourth 
condition  annexed  to  the  declaration,  which  provided  that  the  parties  acced 
ing  to  it  should  enter  into  no  negotiation  for  any  modifications  of  the  law 
of  maritime  war  with  other  nations  which  should  not  contain  the  four  points 
contained  in  the  Paris  Declaration,  seemed  inconsistent  with  a  proper  regard 
to  the  national  sovereignty  of  the  United  States." 

On  the  29th  of  July,  1856,  Mr.  Mason,  then  Minister  of  the  United  States 
to  France,  was  instructed  to  propose  to  the  imperial  government  of  that 
country,  to  enter  into  an  arrangement  with  the  United  States  for  its  adherence 
to  the  Declaration  of  Paris,  provided  that  the  first  principle  should  be  amended 
as  specified  in  the  President's  decision  of  the  i4th  of  that  month.  Instruc 
tions  were  sent  on  the  3ist  of  January  following,  to  Mr.  Dallas,  our  Minister 
at  London,  to  make  the  like  proposition  to  the  British  Government.  No 
favorable  results  came  from  this  effort.  Probably  there  'could  not  have  been 


268       THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

with  these  powers  alone,  since  the  conditions  with  the  declaration  prohibited 
all  the  powers  that  were  parties  to  it,  from  regarding  the  declaration  in 
any  other  light  than  as  "  one  whole  and  indivisible  compact."  When  Mr. 
Buchanan  became  President  he  directed  the  negotiations  to  be  arrested  for 
the  purpose  of  enabling  him  to  examine  the  questions  involved.  Nothing 
further  was  done  in  these  matters  during  his  administration. 

It  is  one  of  the  felicitations  of  the  writer,  that  on  the  3d  of  March,  1862, 
he  was  pronounced  on  this  topic.  War  was  then  flagrant.  Timidity  about 
foreign  affairs  was  the  rule,  and  that  "  gay  and  festive  defiance  of  foreign 
dictation,"  which  Rufus  Choate  defined  as  the  Democratic  policy,  was  the 
exception.  The  writer  then  offered  a  preamble  and  resolutions,  defining  our 
principles  and  duty.  As  perplexities  may  arise  on  these  questions  in  case 
of  future  foreign  wars,  it  is  well  to  note  the  distinctions  and  history  of  this 
absorbing  topic.  These  are  the  resolutions  he  offered  in  relation  to  mari 
time  rights  : 

"  Whereas,  international  law  cannot  acquire  any  considerable  extension 
except  by  the  collective  work  of  the  nations  either  assembled  in  congress  by 
delegates,  or  by  the  combined  negotiation  of  the  principal  nations  :  and 
'whereas,  the  events  connected  with  the  Trent  affair  have  given  rise  to  the  dis 
cussion  of  maritime  rights  by  the  principal  powers  of  the  world,  —  all  inter 
ested  in  their  authoritative  settlement ;  and  in  that  discussion  the  friendly 
offices  of  the  Emperor  of  France  were  tendered  to  this  government  for  the 
purpose  of  adjusting  the  questions  involved  on  a  clear  and  liberal  basis,  look 
ing  to  the  amelioration  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  upon  the  sea :  Therefore, 

i(-Be  it  Resolved:  First — That  the  National  Legislature  acknowledges, 
the  friendly  intentions  and  enlightened  views  of  the  Emperor  of  the  French 
in  said  interposition. 

"Second.  That  it  favors  the  most  liberal  propositions  with  respect  to 
maritime  rights  and  the  abolition  of  such  usages  as  restrict  the  liberty  of 
neutrals  and  multiply  the  causes  of  dissension  in  the  world,  believing  that 
humanity  and  justice  demand  that  the  calamities  incident  to  war  should  be 
strictly  limited  to  the  "belligerents  themselves  and  to  those  who  voluntarily 
take  part  with  them  ;  but  that  neutrals  abstaining  in  good  faith  from  such 
complicity  ought  to  be  left  to  pursue  their  ordinary  trade  with  either  bel 
ligerent. 

"  Third.  That  the  present  time  is  propitious  for  the  resumption  of  nego 
tiations  to  secure  these  objects,  and  especially  for  the  concurrence  of  the 
nations  in  the  benignant  articles  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Congress  of  Paris 
of  the  sixteenth  of  April,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six,  with  the  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  Marcy,  viz.  : — i.  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished, 
provided  that  the  private  property  of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  a  belligerent 
on  the  high  seas  shall  be  exempted  from  seizure  by  public  armed  vessels  of 
the  other  belligerent,  except  it  be  contraband.  2.  The  neutral  flag  covers 


A  NEW  CHAPTER  IN  THE  LAW  OF  NATIONS.  269 

enemy's  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war.  3.  Neutral  goods, 
with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  are  not  liable  to  capture  under  the 
enemy's  flag.  4.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective. 

u  Fourth.  That  the  people  of  the  United  States  entertain  the  hope  that 
the  great  maritime  powers  of  France  and  England,  relinquishing  their  present 
objections  growing  out  of  their  ill-advised  recognition  of  our  insurgent 
states  as  belligerents,  will  consent  to  the  propositions  of  the  Paris  conference, 
as  the  United  States  have  so  constantly  invited,  and  as  Mr.  Marcy  proposed 
to  the  government  of  France  on  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  July,  eighteen  hun 
dred  and  fifty-six ;  with  such  a  liberal  expansion  of  them  that  the  private 
property,  not  contraband,  of  citizens  and  subjects  of  nations  in  collision 
should  be  exempted  from  confiscation  equally  in  warfare  waged  on  the  land 
and  in  warfare  waged  upon  the  seas,  which  are  the  common  highways  of 
the  nations. 

"  Fifth.  That  the  efforts  of  the  late  Secretary  Marcy  and  the  present 
Secretary  of  State  to  have  these  maxims  ingrafted  as  fixed  principles  of  in 
ternational  law  were  eminently  wise  and  just,  sanctioned  by  our  traditionary 
policy,  and  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  the  Republic,  and  to  the  highest 
interests  of  peace  and  civilization. 

"  Sixth.  That,  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  result,  it  would  be  both 
courteous  and  wise  for  our  government  to  consider  the  proposal  of  the  emi 
nent  publicist  of  France,  M.  Hautefeuille,  for  a  Congress  of  the  maritime 
powers,  which,  by  uniting  in  one  body  the  scattered  forces  of  all  neutrals, 
may  secure  to  each  the  respect  and  security  which  they  cannot  obtain  while 
remaining  isolated  ;  and  that  thus  they  may  be  enabled  to  maintain,  as  a 
lasting  element  of  the  law  of  nations,  that  maritime  equilibrium  so  long 
sought  by  the  United  States  of  America,  and  so  important  to  the  freedom 
of  commerce  and  the  repose  of  the  world." 

On  the  nth  of  April,  1862,  these  resolutions  were  advocated  by  the 
writer  in  a  speech,  entitled  "  The  Democracy  of  the  Sea."  In  this  speech, 
the  liberal  position  of  America  is  vindicated.  Had  our  government  in  its 
intestine  conflict  followed  these  doctrines  upon  the  land,  it  would  have  been 
upon  a  firmer  ground  of  vantage  than  it  enjoyed.  It  would  have  commended 
this  nation,  with  emphasis,  to  the  attention  of  mankind,  as  the  advocate  of 
liberal  laws  applicable  to  another  and  less  stable  element. 

This  subject  received,  in  all  its  length  and  breadth,  as  the  author  advo 
cated  it,  early  and  long  attention  at  the  hands  of  Mr.  Seward,  in  the  admin 
istration  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  On  April  24,  1861,  Mr.  Seward  addressed  a 
circular  letter  to  the  ministers  of  the  United  States  in  Great  Britain,  France, 
and  the  other  principal  nations  of  Europe.  In  this  he  detailed,  substantially, 
the  history  of  the  Declaration  of  Paris,  and  the  relation  of  the  United  States 
Government  to  that  new  chapter  in  the  law  of  nations  which  it  had  inspired 
without  becoming  a  party  to  it.  England  and  France  having  taken  the  lead 


270  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

in  all  foreign  negotiations  to  be  entered  into  with  us  at  that  time,  the  former 
proposition  to  admit  the  United  States  as  a  party  to  the  Paris  Declaration, 
with  the  desired  amendment  to  the  first  article,  was,  in  pursuance  of  that  letter, 
submitted  to  these  powers.  A  long  and  fruitless  correspondence  ensued.  The 
correspondence  on  our  side  was  conducted  by  Mr.  Seward,  Charles  Francis 
Adams,  Minister  to  England,  and  William  L.  Dayton,  Minister  to  France  ; 
and  on  the  side  of  England  and  France,  by  Earl  Russell  and  M.  Thouvenel, 
ministers  of  the  respective  governments  for  their  foreign  affairs.  It  is  need 
less  to  say,  that  in  the  hands  of  these  brilliant  statesmen  the  subject  of  the 
discussion  was  exhaustively  treated.  The  letters  exchanged  are  specimens 
of  consummate  ability  and  profound  diplomacy.  The  immediate  inspiration 
of  Mr.  Seward  was  to  neutralize  the  effect  of  any  recognition  of  the  seceded 
states  as  a  belligerent  power.  He  saw  this  Scyllaeum  looming  up  in  the 
course  of  the  Ship  of  State.  He  hoped  to  steer  past  its  dangers.  England 
saw  it  also.  She  was  determined  that  we  should  not,  by  any  consent  on  her 
part,  escape  from  wreck.  Both  that  power  and  France  were  willing  that 
we  should  come  in  as  a  party  to  the  Paris  Declaration,  "  pure  and  simple." 
We  were  at  this  time  willing  to  waive  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr. 
Marcy.  We  would  have  waited  for  its  acceptance  at  a  future  time,  when 
other  powers  should  come  up  to  our  moral  standard.  Everything  was 
arranged,  as  we  supposed,  for  a  convention  to  be  submitted  to  our  Senate,  as 
the  Constitution  required,  when  lo !  Earl  Russell,  on  Aug.  19,  1861,  said 
to  Mr.  Adams,  in  a  short  note :  u  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  a 
declaration  which  I  propose  to  make  upon  signing  the  convention,  of  which 
you  gave  me  a  draft,  embodying  the  articles  of  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

"  I  propose  to  make  the  declaration  in  written  form,  and  to  furnish  you 
with  a  copy  of  it. 

44  You  will  observe  that  it  is  intended  to  prevent  any  misconception  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  engagement  to  be  taken  by  Her  Majesty. 

"  If  you  have  no  objection  to  name  a  day  in  the  course  of  this  week  for  the 
signature  of  the  convention,  Mr.  Dayton  can  on  that  day,  and  at  the  same 
time,  sign  with  M.  Thouvenel  a  convention  identical  with  that  which  you 
propose  to  sign  with  me." 

Enclosed  in  this  note  was  the  following  Declaration : 

"  In  affixing  his  signature  to  the  convention  of  this  day  between  Her 
Majesty,  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the  United  States  of 
America,  the  Earl  Russell  declares,  by  order  of  Her  Majesty,  that  Her 
Majesty  does  not  intend  thereby  to  undertake  any  engagement  which  shall 
have  any  bearing,  direct  or  indirect,  on  the  internal  differences  now  prevail 
ing  in  the  United  States." 

Up  to  this  moment,  not  the  slightest  intimation  of  such  a  declaration  was 
made.  Its  language  meant,  although  almost  enigmatical  in  its  terms,  that 
the  Confederate  States  were  not  to  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  United 


EARL  RUSSELL'S  SCHEME  DISCOVERED.  271 

States  in  the  construction  of  the  convention  which  our  ministers  had  almost 
signed.  The  United  States  was  to  be  bound  by  the  Paris  Declaration,  but 
the  Confederate  States  were  to  be  regarded  as  a  belligerent  power.  The 
latter  were  not  to  be  bound  by  that  declaration.  They  were  to  be  free  to 
grant  letters  of  marque  to  privateers,  and  do  all  the  acts  prohibited  to  powers 
adhering  to  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 

Mr.  Adams  at  once  suspended  action  in  the  matter.  It  was  practically 
at  an  end.  He  advised  Mr.  Seward  of  the  new  condition.  Mr.  Seward 
painfully  felt  this  stinging  slight  put  upon  our  government,  all  the  more  that 
he  was  not  in  a  situation  to  resent  it.  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  of  Sept. 
7,  1861,  he  said:  "I  am  instructed  by  the  President  to  say,  that  the  pro 
posed  declaration  is  inadmissible.  To  admit  such  a  new  article  would,  for 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  United  States,  be  to  permit  foreign  powers 
to  take  cognizance  of  and  adjust  its  relations  on  assumed  internal  and  purely 
domestic  differences  existing  within  our  own  country."  "  This  broad  con 
sideration,"  said  Mr.  Seward,  "  supersedes  any  necessity  for  considering  in 
what  manner  or  in  what  degree  the  projected  convention,  if  completed,  either 
subject  to  the  explanation  proposed  or  not,  would  bear  directly  or  indirectly 
on  the  internal  differences  which  the  British  Government  assume  to  be  pre 
vailing  in  the  United  States."  Mr.  Seward  was  not  to  be  drawn  into  any 
convention  which  would  in  the  remotest  degree  admit  the  existence  of  the 
Confederate  States.  On  the  other  hand,  England  and  France  had  each  re 
cognized  the  Confederacy  as  a  belligerent  power.  These  governments  were 
acting  conjointly  in  the  proposed  convention.  France  submitted,  mutatis 
mutandis,  the  declaration  of  the  British  Government.  Earl  Russell  delivered 
the  letter  to  Mr.  Adams  on  Aug.  19,  1861.  M.  Thouvenel  delivered  that 
of  France  to  Mr.  Dayton,  the  next  day.  Thus  terminated  the  negotiations 
for  the  adhesion  of  the  United  States  to  the  Declaration  of  Paris.  How 
much  the  United  States  may  be  the  loser  by  this  failure,  a  war  between  two 
great  powers,  on  the  sea,  will  demonstrate. 

Looking  calmly  over  this  correspondence,  it  does  not  appear  that  there 
was  any  weighty  reason  for  requiring  our  acceptance  of  the  additional  decla 
ration.  Whether  willing  or  unwilling,  we  were  bound  to  accept  the  notice 
already  given,  that  England  and  France,  and  other  maritime  powers,  had 
recognized  the  Confederate  States  as  belligerents.  Had  the  government  of 
the  United  States  been  one  of  the  parties  to  the  Paris  congress,  would  that 
have  had  any  effect  on  the  belligerent  rights  of  the  Confederacy  ?  Certainly 
not.  The  latter  was  not  a  party  to  any  international  compact.  Hence, 
after  its  recognition  as  a  belligerent,  it  had  the  right  under  the  law  of  nations 
to  carry  on  its  war  by  every  mode  which  that  law  permitted.  It  could,  there 
fore,  send  out  privateers,  and  no  power  that  respected  the  law  of  nations 
would  regard  them  as  pirates.  Whatever  may  have  been  our  own  dispo 
sition  in  respect  to  Confederate  cruisers  made  no  difference  in  a  legal  point 
of  view,  while  they  sailed  under  the  ensign  and  commission  of  a  recognized 


272  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

belligerent  power.  Our  authorities  soon  realized  this  stubborn  fact.  It  is 
therefore  a  matter  of  regret  that  the  negotiations  for  our  adhesion  to  the 
principles  of  the  Paris  Declaration,  which  set  forth  time-honored  American 
policy,  should  have  failed  by  reason  of  England  and  France  insisting  on  a 
declaration  which  had  no  real  relation  to  the  subject  discussed,  and  which 
was  regarded  by  our  Executive  as  purposely  offensive  in  its  terms. 

After  all,  it  was  a  power  greater,  in  respect  to  the  United  States,  than 
England  or  France,  or  both  together,  with  which  our  government  had  to 
deal ;  and  that  was  the  Confederacy  itself.  That  power  soon  exhibited  the 
ability  to  assert  and  maintain  all  the  rights  of  a  belligerent.  This  it  would 
have  done  as  well  without  as  with  the  sanction  of  any  foreign  government. 
What  we  might  justly  complain  of,  was  the  hasty  action  of  Her  Britannic 
Majesty  in  proclaiming  the  neutrality  of  her  government  on  May  13,  1861, 
before  there  was  any  substantial  armament  North  or  South.  At  that  time, 
giving  to  the  secession  movement  its  largest  effect,  no  foreign  nation  had  any 
lawful  right  to  regard  it  in  any  other  light  than  as  an  attempt  for  disunion. 
We  had  not  treated  Great  Britain  in  this  manner  on  a  like  occasion.  In  the 
letter  last  quoted  from,  Mr.  Seward  said:  "  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  re 
garded  as  disrespectful,  if  you  should  remind  Lord  Russell  that  when,  in 
1838,  a  civil  war  broke  out  in  Canada,  a  part  of  the  British  dominions 
adjacent  to  the  United  States,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  passed, 
and  the  President  executed,  a  law  which  effectually  prevented  any  interven 
tion  against  the  government  of  Great  Britain  in  those  internal  differences  by 
American  citizens,  whatever  might  be  their  motives,  real  or  pretended, 
whether  of  interest  or  sympathy.  I  send  you  a  copy  of  that  enactment. 
The  British  Government  will  judge  for  itself  whether  it  is  suggestive  of 
any  measures  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  that  might  tend  to  preserve  the 
peace  of  the  two  countries,  and  through  that  way  the  peace  of  all  nations." 
Had  such  a  law  been  then  enacted  in  Great  Britain,  the  government  of  that 
nation  would  not  have  been  called  upon  to  settle  the  Geneva  award,  for  the 
acts  done  or  abetted  by  British  subjects  in  violation  of  Her  Majesty's  pro 
claimed  neutrality. 

In  the  same  letter  Mr.  Seward  announced  our  foreign  policy  in  these  words  : 
"  Regarding  this  negotiation  at  an  end,  the  question  arises,  what,  then,  are 
to  be  the  views  and  policy  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  rights  of 
neutrals  in  maritime  war  in  the  present  case?  My  previous  dispatches  leave 
no  uncertainty  on  this  point.  We  regard  Great  Britain  as  a  friend.  Her 
Majesty's  flag,  according  to  our  traditional  policy,  covers  enemy's  goods,  not 
contraband  of  war.  Goods  of  Her  Majesty's  subjects,  not  contraband  of  war, 
are  exempt  from  confiscation,  though  found  under  a  neutral  or  disloyal  flag. 
No  depredations  shall  be  committed  by  our  naval  forces  or  by  those  of  any 
of  our  citizens,  so  far  as  we  can  prevent  it,  upon  vessels  or  property  of  British 
subjects.  Our  blockade,  being  effective,  must  be  respected."  Mr.  Seward 
never  for  a  moment  failed  to  speak  for  the  union  of  all  the  states.  North  and 


DANGEROUS  PRECEDENTS  FOR  ENGLAND.  273 

South,  all  the  people  were  ever  considered  by  him  as  American  citizens,  for 
whose  conduct  in  regard  to  other  nations  the  government  of  the  United  States 
would  be  responsible.  In  his  efforts  to  prevent  foreign  recognition  of  the 
Confederacy,  Mr.  Seward's  position  was  that  of  unswerving  devotion  to  the 
Union.  He  would  not  be  entrapped  into  any  admission  of  the  possibility  of  its 
disruption.  His  great  law  was  the  law  of  self-preservation.  "  In  assuming 
this  position,"  said  he,  "and  the  policy  resulting  from  it,  we  have  done  as  I 
thinlc  Great  Britain  herself  must,  and  therefore  would  do,  if  a  domestic  in 
surrection  should  attempt  to  detach  Ireland,  or  Scotland,  or  England  from 
the  United  Kingdom,  while  she  would  hear  no  argument  nor  enter  into  any 
debate  on  the  subject."  This  language  he  addressed  to  the  British  Govern 
ment  on  July  21,  1861,  through  Mr.  Adams,  our  minister,  in  transmitting 
him  a  copy  of  the  act  of  Congress  which  had  just  been  passed,  authorizing 
the  President  to  proclaim  certain  ports  of  the  United  States  to  be  closed  to 
trade.  It  had  been  intimated  by  Lord  Russell  to  Mr.  Adams,  that  the  British 
Government  would  question  our  right  to  close  these  ports.  There  was  at 
this  time  domestic  trouble  in  the  Republic  of  New  Grenada.  The  govern 
ment  of  that  country  had  notified  the  British  Government  that  five  named 
ports  of  that  republic  had  been  closed  to  commerce.  On  the  27th  of  June, 
1861,  Mr.  H.  Berkly,  M.  P.,  rose  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  asked  the 
Secretary  of  State  for  foreign  affairs  whether  Her  Majesty's  Government 
recognized  the  notification  given.  Lord  John  Russell  replied  as  follows  : 
"The  opinion  of  Her  Majesty's  Government,  after  taking  legal  advice,  is, 
that  it  is  perfectly  competent  for  the  government  of  a  country,  in  a  state  of 
tranquillity,  to  say  which  ports  shall  be  open  to  trade  and  which  shall  be 
closed  ;  but  in  the  event  of  insurrection  or  civil  war  in  that  country,  it  is  not 
competent  for  its  government  to  close  the  ports  that  are  de facto  in  the  hands  of 
the  insurgents,  as  that  would  be  an  invasion  of  international  law  with  regard  to 
blockade.  Admiral  Milne,  acting  on  instructions  from  Her  Majesty's  Gov 
ernment,  has  ordered  the  commanders  of  Her  Majesty's  ships  not  to  recognize 
the  closing  of  their  ports."  Mr.  Seward  gave  the  British  Government  to  un 
derstand  that  his  government  would  not  "  for  a  moment  acquiesce  in  such  a 
doctrine."  We  had  a  navy  of  not  unequal  strength  with  that  of  Great  Britain, 
and,  to  quote  Mr.  Seward's  enunciation  of  American  policy,  "Our  blockade, 
being  effective,  must  be  respected."  We  were  troubled  no  further  with  the 
blockade  question.  Although  not  bound  by  the  Paris  Declaration,  we  ad 
hered  to  our  own  time-honored  policy  from  which  its  rules  were  framed  ;  and 
voluntarily  abandoned  advantages  of  which  we  might  have  availed  ourselves 
on  the  ground  of  not  being  bound  by  them. 

Throughout  our  unhappy  domestic  strife,  Mr.  Seward  directed  our  foreign 
affairs  in  a  spirit  of  moderation  and  patriotism.  He  displayed  an  ability  not 
surpassed  in  the  diplomacy  of  any  time.  In  the  bitterness  of  the  strife  inci 
dent  to  the  recombining  of  our  national  elements  during  the  reconstruction 
period,  the  services,  the  high  patriotism,  the  untiring  labors  of  this  peerless 


274  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

statesman  were  forgotten  or  eclipsed  by  the  events  of  that  troublous  era.  Yet 
he  was  ever  anxious  to  soften  the  asperities  of  the  reconstruction  period.  He 
was  generous  to  those  who  differed  with  him  on  political  principles,  while  un 
yielding  in  his  own  tenets.  To  the  author  of  this  volume  he  was  ever  kind. 
He  recalls  with  affectionate  memory,  in  this  connection,  a  speech  delivered  by 
Mr.  Seward  before  an  immense  gathering  of  his  neighbors  in  Corning  Hall, 
Auburn,  New- York,  on  the  3istof  October,  1868.  It  was  a  deliberate  speech, 
yet  not  devoid  of  clever  humor.  It  had  its  effect  not  only  in  Auburn,  but 
throughout  the  state.  It  gave  to  the  author,  who  was  then  a  candidate  for 
Congressman-at-large  for  the  State  of  New-York,  a  handsome  percentage  of 
votes  beyond  that  given  to  others, — and  notably  large  in  Auburn.  The  ques 
tion  then  was  one  of  national  reconciliation  and  magnanimity.  Congress  had 
been  derelict  in  not  receiving  the  states  no  longer  belligerent.  Mr.  Seward  had 
opposed  force,  and  commended  peaceful  methods  of  persuasion  and  reason. 
He  eulogized  in  that  speech  many  of  the  Democratic  leaders  for  their  aid  in 
carrying,  and  their  loyalty  in  accepting,  the  amendment  abolishing  slavery. 
u  I  entertain,'*  he  said,  "  no  ill-will  toward  the  Democratic  party  or  its  leaders, 
and  certainly  have  no  uncharitable  feelings  toward  that  great  constituency. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  cherish  a  grateful  appreciation  of  the  patriotism,  the 
magnanimity,  the  heroism  of  many  of  my  fellow-citizens,  with  whom  I  have 
cheerfully  labored  and  co-operated  while  they  still  retained  their  adhesion 
to  the  Democratic  party.  How  could  I  distrust  the  loyalty  or  the  virtue  of 
Andrew  Johnson,  of  General  Hancock,  of  General  McClellan,  of  Senator 
Hendricks,  of  Indiana,  or  his  associate,  Mr.  Niblack,  or  of  Mr.  Cox,  for 
merly  of  Ohio,  to  whom  personally,  more  than  any  other  member,  is  due  the 
passage  of  the  constitutional  amendment  in  Congress  abolishing  African 
slavery?"  This  was  great,  and,  to  some  extent,  needed  encomium  at  that 
time.  Mr.  Seward  was  a  grand  tribune  of  the  people.  He  could  proudly 
say  that  no  state,  nor  any  citizen,  had  by  any  act  or  word  of  his  ever  suffered 
disfranchisement  or  confiscation  ;  nor,  except  for  the  assassination  of  Abraham 
Lincoln,  had  any  one,  through  him,  endured  penalties  or  punishment  after 
hostilities  had  ceased.  He  vindicated  the  Monroe  doctrine  in  Mexico.  He 
was  a  friend  of  the  exile  and  emigrant.  Praise  and  justice  from  him  was 
pure  gold.  It  was  more  to  the  writer.  It  was  justification  before  his  country 
men  in  the  state  of  his  adoption  in  a  crucial  test  of  all  the  liberalities  of 
his  political  life. 

To  William  H.  Seward,  the  grandest  man  of  his  day,  no  national  tribute 
has  yet  been  paid.  After  a  tour  of  the  world,  and  after  being  received  by  all 
nations  as  the  peer  of  any  living  statesman,  he  reposes  in  the  sepulchre  at 
Auburn,  whose  associations  are  as  peaceful  as  the  ways  which  led  to  it  were 
stormful.  But  while  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  our  Civil  War  shall 
remain  in  the  archives  of  the  Nation,  that  monument  of  his  worth  and  great 
ness  must  far  surpass  in  grandeur  any  memorial  of  bronze  or  marble  that 
genius  can  conceive  or  art  execute. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


THE  TRENT  AFFAIR. 

THE    CONFEDERATE  COMMISSIONERS  —  THEIR  AUTHORITY  AND  INSTRUCTIONS  — 
THEIR    ARRIVAL  IN   HAVANA  —  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  CAPTAIN-GENERAL 

—  CAPTAIN  WILKES  DECIDES  TO  ARREST  THEM  — THE  TRENT  BROUGHT  TO 

—  RESISTANCE  TALKED  OF  — BRITISH  INDIGNATION  AND  THREATS  — CAPTAIN 
WILKES    RELEASES    THE  TRENT— HIS  MISTAKE  — THE  PRISONERS    AT  FORT 
WARREN  — THE  QUESTION  IN  CONGRESS  — MR.  VALLANDIGHAM'S  PREDICTION 

—  MR.  COX'S  REPLY  — EARL  RUSSELL'S  NOTE  —  MR.   SEWARD'S  REPLY -THE 
ARREST  JUSTIFIED  — BELLIGERENT  RIGHTS,  AND  DUTIES   OF  NEUTRALS -A 
DIPLOMATIC  DUEL  — EARL  RUSSELL  DISARMED  —  NO  APOLOGY  —  A  DINNER 
PARTY  — THE  RELEASE  OF  THE  PRISONERS  — AN  AMERICAN  VICTORY. 

IN  October,   1861,  John  Slidell  and  James  M.  Mason  were  appointed 
commissioners  or  diplomatic  agents  of  the  Confederate  States  to  Eng 
land  and  France. 
They  were  especially  instructed  by  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  State, 
Mr.  Hunter,  to  work  for  the  recognition  of  the  Confederacy  as  an  inde 
pendent  power.     As  inducements  to  these  governments,  they  were  to  rep 
resent —  first,  that  a  vast  area  of  the  South  would  be  devoted  to  the  pro 
duction  of  cheap  cotton ;  and  second,  that  the  development  of  the  agricul 
tural  resources  of  the  South  under  free  trade  would  create  a  demand  for  the 
manufactures  of  England  and  France,  larger  and  more  profitable  to  all  par 
ties  than  would  be  possible  under  the  commercial  regulations  of  the  United 
States. 

The  commissioners  were  to  inform  the  governments  to  whom  they  were 
accredited  that  although  the  Confederacy,  as  then  formed,  included  but  eleven 
states,  Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri  would  undoubtedly  attach  them 
selves  to  its  fortunes,  after  the  close  of  the  existing  war.  There  would  then 
be  embraced  in  the  Confederacy  a  great,  populous,  and  growing  empire. 
Its  internal  regulations  would  harmonize  with  the  most  liberal  policies  of 
commerce.  The  commissioners  were  to  say  that  one  of  the  conditions  which 
would  be  insisted  upon  in  any  treaty  of  peace  with  the  United  States,  would 


276  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

be  a  stipulation  to  leave  the  border  slave  states  free  to  vote  on  the  question 
of  withdrawing  from  the  Federal  Union  and  joining  the  Southern  Confed 
eracy  ;  both  governments  to  retire  their  military  forces  from  these  states 
until  the  question  was  decided.  When  the  time  should  come  for  this  pro 
ceeding,  it  was  inferred  that  there  would  be  no  doubt  that  the  vote  would  be 
in  favor  of  the  South. 

Charged  with  these  instructions,  and  clothed  with  all  diplomatic  author 
ity  in  the  premises,  including  the  power  to  enter  into  conventions  for  treaties, 
the  commissioners  embarked  at  Charleston  on  board  the  steamer  Theodora. 
The  steamer  eluded  our  blockading  squadron,  and  landed  them  on  the  Island 
of  Cuba. 

Capt.  Charles  Wilkes  was  commanding  the  United  States  steam  sloop 
of  war  San  Jacinto,  which  carried  thirteen  guns.  He  was  at  this  time  on 
the  south  coast  of  the  island,  off  Cienfuegos.  Learning  of  the  arrival  of  the 
Theodora  with  the  commissioners,  he  took  in  a  supply  of  coal  and  sailed 
October  26,  with  all  dispatch,  intending  to  capture  the  blockade-runner. 
The  San  Jacinto  arrived  at  Havana  on  the  thirty-first ;  but  it  arrived  too  late 
to  intercept  her.  Before  leaving  Cienfuegos  Captain  Wilkes  had  ascertained 
that  the  commissioners  were  at  Havana,  and  that  they  intended  to  depart 
from  that  port  on  board  the  English  mail  steamer  Trent,  about  the  7th  of 
November,  en  route  for  Southampton,  England. 

Captain  Wilkes  was  a  dashing,  enterprising  officer.  He  was  one  who 
would  not  hesitate  to  act  on  his  own  responsibility.  Even  in  a  doubtful  case, 
when  the  interests  and  honor  of  his  country  were  concerned,  he  resolved 
his  doubts  in  favor  of  his  flag.  The  question  at  once  arose  in  his  mind 
whether  he  had,  under  the  law  of  nations,  a  right  to  arrest  this  embassy, 
while  it  was  at  sea  under  the  protection  of  a  neutral  flag.  At  Cienfuegos  he 
had  access  to  some  volumes  of  Kent,  Wheaton,  Vattel,  and  the  decisions  of 
Sir  William  Scott  and  other  judges  of  the  Admiralty  Court  of  Great  Britain, 
which  bore  on  the  rights  and  responsibilities  of  neutrals.  As  a  first  step 
in  the  inquiry,  he  rightly  assumed  that  the  case  was  within  the  sphere  of 
international  law.  The  governments  of  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Spain 
had  already  recognized  the  Confederate  States  as  a  belligerent  power.  The 
ports  of  these  countries,  and  of  their  colonies  and  dependencies,  were  open 
to  vessels  bearing  the  Confederate  flag.  Confederate  cruisers  were  then  ad 
mitted  to  all  the  protection  and  courtesy  extended  to  vessels  of  the  United 
States.  Clearly,  therefore,  the  merchant  vessels  of  the  nations  that  had  re 
cognized  this  belligerent  power  were  bound  to  observe  the  duties  imposed 
upon  them  by  international  law  in  regard  to  contraband  persons  and  property. 
In  view  of  this  obligation  to  avoid  contraband  trade,  Captain  Wilkes  did  not 
hesitate  to  board  and  search  the  Trent.  As  a  matter  of  law  his  conclusion 
was  impregnable.  A  neutral  ship  bearing  dispatches  of  the  enemy,  if  her 
commander  had  knowledge  of  the  fact,  was  unquestionably  subject  to  seizure 


DETERMINATION  TO  SEIZE  THE  TRENT.  277 

and  condemnation.  But  the  seizure  of  the  persons  of  the  commissioners  was 
a  different  matter.  Were  they  to  be  regarded  as  diplomatic  agents?  If 
they  were,  then,  would  they,  under  the  law  of  nations,  be  subject  to  arrest? 
In  respect  to  the  latter  question,  Captain  Wilkes  had  read  in  the  authorities 
on  international  law,  that  "  foreign  ministers  of  a  belligerent  on  board  neu 
tral  ships  are  required  to  possess  papers  from  the  other  belligerent  to  permit 
them  to  pass  free." 

Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  had  assumed,  and  held  themselves  out  at 
Havana,  to  be  diplomatic  agents  of  the  Confederate  States,  bound  on  a  mis 
sion  to  the  governments  of  England  and  France.  Captain  Wilkes  had  ample 
proof  of  this  fact.  They  had  openly  stated  that  they  were  clothed  with  full 
authority  to  form  treaties  and  alliances.  Their  mission  looked  to  the  recog 
nition  of  the  Confederate  States  as  an  independent  power.  They  had  been 
presented  to  the  Captain-General  of  Cuba  by  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Con 
sul-General  ;  yet  it  was  stated  that  this  was  merely  an  act  of  courtesy.  Cap 
tain  Wilkes  had  been  informed  by  the  Captain-General  that  he  had  not  re 
ceived  them  in  any  official  or  diplomatic  capacity,  but  only  as  distinguished 
gentlemen  and  strangers.  Nevertheless,  during  their  stay  at  Havana,  both 
report  and  assumption  gave  these  gentlemen  the  title  of  ministers  of  the 
Confederate  States  on  a  mission  to  England  and  France.  It  was  in  this 
character  that  they  were  introduced  on  board  the  English  mail  steamer 
Trent,  by  the  British  Consul-General  and  his  son.  The  latter  acted  as 
agent  of  the  steamer  when  the  commissioners  embarked  on  her  en  route  for 
Southampton.  This  steamer  was  a  merchant  vessel.  It  was  plying  between 
Vera  Cruz,  Havana,  and  St.  Thomas.  It  carried  Her  Britannic  Majesty's 
mails  by  contract. 

Under  these  circumstances  Captain  Wilkes  determined  to  seize  the 
Trent  and  take  the  commissioners  into  his  custody  on  the  high  seas  at  the 
first  opportunity.  He  had  no  doubt  as  to  the  right  of  search,  or  of  his 
power  to  seize  the  enemy's  dispatches  on  a  neutral  ship,  when  they  were 
reduced  to  writing  ;  but  he  had,  perhaps,  some  doubt  as  to  his  right  to  seize 
the  persons  of  the  commissioners.  "  These  gentlemen  were  not,"  he  after 
wards  said  in  his  official  report  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  "  dispatches 
in  the  literal  sense,  and  did  not  seem  to  come  under  that  designation,  and 
nowhere  could  I  find  a  case  in  point."  But,  accepting  them  at  their  own 
representations,  as  accredited  diplomatic  agents  of  the  enemy,  he  solved  the 
doubt  by  regarding  them  as  "  the  embodiment  of  dispatches." 

In  the  absence  of  a  case  in  point,  this  conclusion  of  Captain  Wilkes  would 
have  been  admitted  in  the  high  Court  of  Admiralty  itself  as  correct,  but 
he  weakened  it  by  giving  further  and  untenable  reasons  in  its  support. 
In  one  point  of  view  he  regarded  the  Confederate  commissioners  as  being 
the  embodiment  of  dispatches, —  as  clothed  with  diplomatic  authority;  and, 
therefore,  as  contraband,  unless  protected  by  a  Federal  passport ;  while  from 


278  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

another  point  of  view  he  looked  upon  them  as  escaping  "conspirators"  to 
whose  persons  no  diplomatic  immunity  could  attach  until  they  had  been  re 
ceived  by  the  governments  to  whom  they  were  accredited.  In  either  view 
of  the  case  he  considered  it  his  duty  to  capture  them.  But  the  former  reason 
only  was  correct,  for  if  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  were  to  be  regarded 
merely  as  escaping  conspirators  who  were  neither  ministers  nor  militants, 
there  could  be  no  more  authority  to  take  them  by  force  off  the  deck  of  an 
English  ship  than  to  arrest  them  on  British  soil.  However,  being  thus 
satisfied  in  respect  of  the  right  to  seize  the  persons  of  Messrs.  Mason  and 
Slidell,  and  detain  the  British  ship  if  expedient,  Captain  Wilkes  took  in  a 
full  supply  of  coal  and  steamed  out  of  the  harbor  of  Havana  on  the  afternoon 
of  the  2d  of  November.  Ostensibly,  he  went  on  a  cruise  after  the  Con 
federate  steamer  Sumpter,  but  in  reality  his  object  was  to  take  a  suitable 
position  on  the  route  of  the  Trent  to  St.  Thomas,  in  order  to  intercept  her. 
The  next  day,  when  he  was  about  to  board  a  French  brig,  the  latter  ran 
into  the  San  Jacinto,  on  the  starboard  side  at  the  mainchains.  This  mishap 
caused  considerable  delay.  The  San  Jacinto  was  not  injured,  but  the  bow 
sprit  and  foretopmast  of  the  brig  were  carried  away.  Captain  Wilkes  took 
the  brig  in  tow.  He  put  an  officer  and  some  men  on  board  to  repair  damage. 
Before  night  he  left  her  with  a  fair  wind  within  about  eight  miles  of  the 
Havana  light.  He  then  went  over  to  Key  West,  in  hopes  of  finding  the  Pow- 
hatan,  or  some  other  United  States  steamer,  to  accompany  the  San  Jacinto 
to  the  Bahama  Channel,  in  order  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  Trent  to 
escape  either  by  night  or  day.  Finding  that  the  Powhatan  had  left  the  day 
before,  Captain  Wilkes  re-crossed  the  next  morning  to  the  north  side  of 
Cuba.  He  communicated  with  the  Sagua  le  Grande  on  the  4th.  He  hoped 
to  receive  a  telegram  from  Mr.  Shufeldt,  our  Consul-General  at  Havana, 
announcing  the  time  of  the  departure  of  the  Trent.  Receiving  no  dispatch, 
the  San  Jacinto  was  immediately  headed  to  the  eastward.  Steaming  about 
ninety  miles,  she  entered  the  Old  Bahama  Channel,  in  sight  of  the  Paredon 
del  Grande  light-house.  The  channel  is  only  fifteen  miles  wide  at  this  point. 

Here,  in  order  to  avoid  all  possibility  of  escape,  the  San  Jacinto  cruises 
until  the  morning  of  the  8th.  At  11.40  A.  M.  of  that  day  the  smoke  of  an 
approaching  steamer  is  first  seen.  Concluding  that  this  is  the  Trent,  the 
San  Jacinto  takes  position  to  the  westward  of  the  entrance,  in  the  narrowest 
part  of  the  channel.  It  soon  becomes  apparent  that  the  approaching  steamer 
is  the  Trent. 

The  San  Jacinto  is  now  ready  to  furnish  some  work  for  the  diplomats  of 
two  continents  !  At  12.55  o'clock  the  command  is  given  to  beat  to  quarters, 
hoist  the  colors,  and  load  the  guns.  When  the  two  vessels  are  a  mile  apart  the 
San  Jacinto  fires  a  shot  across  the  bow  of  the  Trent.  The  latter  vessel  im 
mediately  displays  the  English  colors,  but  still  maintains  her  speed.  She 
shows  no  disposition  to  heave  to.  Then  a  shell  is  fired  across  her  course. 


ARREST  OF  MASON  AND  SLIDELL.  279 

This  has  the  desired  effect.  It  brings  her  to  at  once.  When  the  Trent  is 
within  hailing  distance,  Captain  Moir,  her  commander,  inquires  as  to  what 
is  wanted.  Captain  Wilkes  replies  that  he  will  send  a  boat.  He  had  already 
given  orders  to  his  executive  officer,  Lieutenant  D.  M.  Fairfax,  to  have  the 
second  and  third  cutters  fully  manned  and  armed,  in  readiness  to  board  the 
Trent,  which  was  then  hove  to  under  the  guns  of  the  San  Jacinto.  Lieu 
tenant  Fairfax  at  once  proceeds  in  the  third  cutter,  with  a  full-armed  boat 
crew  and  a  guard  of  marines.  His  instructions  are,  to  board  the  Trent, 
demand  inspection  of  her  papers,  her  clearance  from  Havana,  and  the  list 
of  her  passengers  and  crew  ;  and,  should  he  find  Mr.  Mason  and  Mr.  Slidell 
and  their  secretaries,  Mr.  McFarland  and  Mr.  Eustis,  to  make  them  prisoners 
and  send  them  on  board  the  San  Jacinto.  In  such  case,  he  is  to  seize  the 
steamer  as  a  prize.  He  is  to  act  with  all  delicacy  and  kindness.  He  is  to 
avoid  using  force  if  possible.  Any  dispatches  found  on  the  persons  arrested, 
and  their  trunks  and  other  personal  effects,  are  also  to  be  taken. 

At  i. 20  p.  M.  Lieutenant  Fairfax  comes  alongside  of  the  Trent  in  the 
armed  cutter.  He  is  accompanied  by  the  second  engineer  and  the  boat 
swain.  Leaving  these  officers  in  the  boat  with  orders  to  wait  until  it  should 
become  necessary  to  show  some  force,  the  lieutenant  goes  on  board  the  Trent. 
He  is  shown  by  her  first  officer  to  the  quarter-deck.  There  he  meets  Captain 
Moir.  He  informs  the  captain  of  the  object  of  his  visit.  He  asks  to  see  flie 
passenger-list.  This,  the  captain  declines  to  produce  ;  whereupon  Lieutenant 
Fairfax  says:  "  I  have  information  that  Mr.  Mason  and  Mr.  Slidell,  Mr. 
McFarland  and  Mr.  Eustis,  have  taken  passage  at  Havana  for  St.  Thomas. 
I  shall  satisfy  myself  whether  they  are  on  board  before  the  steamer  is  allowed 
to  proceed."  Captain  Moir  still  opposes  anything  in  the  nature  of  a  search 
of  his  vessel.  He  persists  in  his  refusal  to  show  the  passenger-list  or  other 
papers.  In  a  few  moments  the  four  gentlemen  sought  for  appear.  Lieu 
tenant  Fairfax  makes  known  to  them  his  instructions.  Mr.  Slidell  and  Mr. 
Mason  protest  against  such  an  arrest  and  disposition  of  their  persons  and 
effects.  They  refuse  to  leave  the  ship  unless  compelled  by  the  employment 
of  an  actual  force  greater  than  they  can  resist.  Mr.  Eustis  and  Mr.  McFar 
land  unite  with  them  in  expressing  a  like  determination. 

There  is  considerable  noise  among  the  other  passengers  at  this  time. 
There  is  talk  of  resistance.  This  reaches  the  officers  in  the  cutter.  They  re 
pair  on  board  with  six  or  eight  armed  men.  After  several  unsuccessful  efforts 
to  induce  the  commissioners  to  go  with  him  peaceably,  and  being  in  the  mean 
time  re-enforced  by  the  arrival  of  the  second  cutter,  Lieutenant  Fairfax  pro 
ceeds  to  execute  his  orders.  By  this  time  the  excitement  becomes  so  great 
on  the  quarter-deck  that  the  marines  and  some  of  the  armed  boat's  crew  are 
ordered  aboard.  They  form  outside  of  the  main-deck  cabin,  where  the  four 
gentlemen  have  gone  to  pack  their  baggage.  In  a  few  minutes  the  latter 


280  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

appear,  still  persisting  that  force  must  be  used.  Lieutenant  Fairfax  then  calls 
to  his  assistance  four  or  five  of  his  officers,  and  taking  hold  of  Mr.  Mason's 
shoulders,  with  an  officer  on  either  side,  they  march  him  in  this  custody  as 
far  as  the  gangway  of  the  steamer.  They  place  him  in  the  second  cutter. 
Mr.  Slidell  insists  that  "  considerable  force"  must  be  applied  to  him  to  get 
him  into  the  cutter.  Therefore  three  of  the  officers  take  hold  of  him.  They 
lead  him  to  the  gangway,  hand  him  over  the  side,  and  seat  him  beside  Mr. 
Mason.  The  secretaries,  Mr.  Eustis  and  Mr.  McFarland,  after  protesting, 
go  quietly  into  the  boat.  The  families  of  the  commissioners  are  passengers. 
Lieutenant  Fairfax  is  instructed  by  Captain  Wilkes  to  extend  an  invitation 
to  them  to  accompany  their  friends  to  the  United  States,  and  to  say  to  them 
that  all  the  attention  and  comforts  that  could  be  commanded  on  the  San 
Jacinto  would  be  freely  placed  at  their  service.  They  arc  invited.  This 
invitation  is  declined. 

Although  Captain  Wilkes  considered  that  the  successful  result  of  his 
search,  and  the  opposition  offered,  would  justify  the  seizure  of  the  Trent  as 
a  prize,  he  decided  not  to  detain  her,  as  she  had  a  large  number  of  passen 
gers  on  board  who  would  suffer  great  loss  and  inconvenience  by  such  ac 
tion.  In  concluding  his  official  report  of  the  affair,  he  said  :  "Although  in 
my  giving  up  this  valuable  prize  I  have  deprived  the  officers  and  crew  of  a 
well-earned  reward,  I  am  assured  that  they  are  quite  content  to  forego  any 
advantages  which  might  have  accrued  to  them  under  the  circumstances."  "  I 
may  add,"  said  he,  "  that  having  assumed  the  responsibility,  I  am  willing  to 
abide  the  result." 

At  3.30  P.  M.  the  Trent  was  allowed  to  proceed  on  her  voyage.  The 
San  Jacinto  bore  away  to  the  northward  and  westward  with  the  distinguished 
prisoners. 

The  whole  affair  was  managed  with  dignified  urbanity  on  the  part  of  our 
officers,  in  the  face  of  many  obstacles  and  slurring  remarks.  The  admiralty 
agent  in  charge  of  the  mails  of  the  Trent,  a  retired  commander  in  the  Royal 
Navy,  was  especially  rude  in  his  comments  on  the  action  of  our  officer.  He 
threatened  that  an  English  squadron  would  raise  the  blockade  in  twenty  days 
after  his  report  of  this  "  outrage  "  reached  home  ;  and  that "  the  Northerners 
might  as  well  give  up,  now."  The  captain  of  the  Trent  was  reserved 
and  dignified  throughout ;  but  some  of  his  officers  made  very  irritating  com 
ments  to  the  passengers,  evidently  intended  for  the  boarding  party,  such  as  : 
"  These  Yankees  will  have  to  pay  well  for  this"  —  "  This  is  the  best  thing 
in  the  world  for  the  South  "  —  "  England  will  open  the  blockade"  —  "  We 
will  have  a  good  chance  at  them  now" — "Did  you  ever  hear  of  such  a 
piratical  act?"  —  "Why,  this  is  a  perfect  Bull  Run"  —  "  They  would  not 
dare  to  do  it,  if  an  English  man-of-war  were  in  sight." 


CAPTAIN  WILKES'  MISTAKE.  281 

Here,  however,  is  a  different  comment  on  the  conduct  of  our  officers : 

"  UNITED  STATES  STEAMER  SAN  JACINTO,  ~| 
November  15,  1861.  j 

SIR  :  Before  leaving  your  ship,  we  think  it  proper  that  we  should  state 
that  since  we  have  been  on  board  of  her  we  have  uniformly  been  treated 
with  great  courtesy  and  attention. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

JOHN  SI.IDELL, 
J.  M.  MASON, 

E.    I.    McFARLANDj, 

GEORGE  EUSTIS. 
CAPTAIN  WILKES,  Commanding  United  States  Steamer  San  Jactnto" 

Regarding  the  wrhole  affair  in  the  light  of  international  law  —  more  es 
pecially  as  expounded  in  England  —  the  only  mistake  made  by  Captain 
Wilkes  was  in  releasing  the  Trent.  He  should  have  taken  her  before  the 
admiralty  side  of  the  United  States  Court  at  Key  West,  for  adjudication. 
There  she  would,  unquestionably,  have  been  condemned  as  a  prize.  "He 
thus,"  said  Mr.  Seward  in  the  correspondence  which  ensued  with  Earl  Rus 
sell,  "prevented  the  judicial  examination  which  might  have  occurred." 

The  prisoners  were  brought  to  Fortress  Monroe.  The  San  Jacinto  was 
ordered  to  refit  for  service  at  the  Charlestown  Navy  Yard.  The  prisoners 
were  retained  on  board  and  conveyed  to  Fort  Warren.  There  they  were  com 
mitted  to  the  custody  of  the  commandant.  "  The  prompt  and  decisive  action 
of  Captain  Wilkes,"  said  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  in  his  subsequent  report 
to  Congress,  "  on  this  occasion,  merited  and  received  the  emphatic  approval 
of  the  department ;  and  if  a  too  generous  forbearance  was  exhibited  in  not 
capturing  the  vessel  which  had  these  rebel  emissaries  on  board,  it  may,  in 
view  of  the  special  circumstances  and  of  its  patriotic  motives,  be  excused  ; 
but  it  must  by  no  means  be  permitted  to  constitute  a  precedent  hereafter  for 
the  treatment  of  any  case  of  similar  infraction  of  neutral  obligations  by  for 
eign  vessels  engaged  in  commerce  or  the  carrying  trade." 

No  matter  how  justifiable  this  search  of  the  Trent  may  have  been 
under  the  law  of  nations,  it  was  most  inopportune.  Almost  from  the  out 
break  of  the  war  the  attitude  of  the  press  and  people  of  England  had  been 
far  from  friendly  toward  the  Union  cause.  The  Tory  party  of  that  country 
did  not  hesitate  to  urge  upon  the  government  a  recognition  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  when  it  became  apparent  that  our  sectional  strife  was  to  be 
decided  by  a  great  war.  Many  of  the  leading  journals  pressed  for  armed 
intervention.  The  blockade  of  the  Southern  ports  was  a  severe  blow  to 
English  trade.  France  also  was  beginning  to  feel  its  effect.  It  was  feared 
that  there  must  soon  be  a  great  scarcity  of  cotton.  There  was  danger  that 

18 


282  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

this  would  lead  to  a  combination  of  the  manufacturing  and  Tory  interests  in 
England.  One-sixth  of  the  population  of  that  country  depended  on  the  man 
ufacture  of  this  staple.  Should  our  war  continue,  it  was  assumed  that 
immense  numbers  of  the  people  must  be  thrown  out  of  employment. 

Indeed,  before  the  Trent  affair,  petitions  had  been  addressed  to  the 
government  urging  it  to  break  the  blockade.  Liverpool  merchants  corre 
sponded  with  Earl  Russell  as  early  as  August,  1861,  in  regard  to  fitting  out 
a  fleet  of  merchant  ships  to  trade  with  New  Orleans  and  other  cotton  ports, 
under  the  convoy  of  British  cruisers,  or  the  protection  of  their  own  guns. 
*c  We  may  rely  upon  it,"  wrote  a  correspondent  in  respect  to  the  threaten 
ing  aspect  of  affairs,  u  that  British  merchants  and  manufacturers  are  chafing 
under  the  broken  commerce  with  America  and  the  present  balance  of  ex 
change,  as  they  have  not  chafed  before  in  our  generation.  They  are  sweat 
ing  every  gold  guinea  they  pay  over  to  us  now  with  a  punching  oath. 
The  Daily  Netus  pours  good  Christian  oil  upon  the  situation  ;  but  we  must 
remember  that  where  five  British  voters  swear  by  the  Daily  News,  twenty- 
five  swear  by  the  Times.  No  matter  what  may  be  the  sympathies  or  the 
humanities  of  the  Shaftesburys  of  England,  we  say  now,  as  we  have  said 
before,  that  the  very  moment  when  it  shall  appear  to  the  government  that  the 
public  tranquillity  is  more  endangered,  and  the  public  purse  more  depleted 
by  the  existing  cotton  embargo  than  they  would  be  by  open  hostilities,  that 
very  moment  the  government  will  join  France  in  breaking  the  Southern 
blockade,  and  the  Derbys,  and  the  Russells,  and  the  Broughams  will  say 
1  amen.'  England  is  before  all  things  English.  Her  humanities  are  splen 
did,  but  they  look  first  to  the  beef  and  the  breeches  of  John  Bull." 

The  Morrill  Tariff,  which  was  adopted  only  as  a  measure  for  raising  a 
war  revenue,  tended  to  reduce  our  importation  of  manufactures  from  France 
.as  well  as  England.  There  was  great  distress  in  the  textile  centres  of  both 
these  countries.  The  French  navy  had  never  before  this  period  attained  to 
such  great  strength,  and  England  still  considered  herself  mistress  of  the  seas. 

Already  there  existed  diplomatic  complications  over  the  arrest  of  British 
subjects  to  whom  quarters  were  assigned  in  Fort  Lafayette  and  habeas  cor 
pus  was  denied.  Lord  Lyons'  note  in  their  behalf,  in  which  he  cited  our 
Constitution  against  such  executive  action,  had  just  been  answered  by  Mr. 
Seward  to  the  effect  that  the  safety  of  the  people  had  become,  in  the  present 
emergency,  the  supreme  law,  and  that  the  foreign  denizen  as  well  as  the 
citizen  must  submit  to  that  law.  Commenting  upon  such  arrests,  the  French 
journals  began,  with  the  sarcasm  of  historical  reminiscence,  to  call  Fort  La 
fayette  "  the  American  Bastile." 

This  was  the  condition  of  our  foreign  relations  when  Captain  Wilkes  by 
force  and  arms  boarded  the  Trent,  and  seized,  as  contraband  of  war,  these 
ambassadors.  It  needed  but  such  an  affair  to  make  England  actively  inter 
vene  in  our  struggle,  had  her  government  then  yielded  to  the  popular  clamor 


AMERICAN  DIPLOMACY.  283 

for  swift  and  vigorous  action.  For  the  moment  English  interests  seemed 
blended  with  patriotic  indignation  over  the  "affront"  offered  to  the  British 
flag  on  the  high  seas.  The  most  liberal-minded  Briton,  even  the  most  radi 
cal  of  the  anti-slavery  enthusiasts,  joined  in  the  public  demand  for  satisfaction. 
Lord  Shaftesbury  declined  to  attend  a  peace  meeting  at  Exeter  Hall,  "  lest," 
as  said  at  the  time,  "  it  might  weaken  faith  in  the  integrity  of  national  action." 

Here  was  an  occasion  for  statesmanship.  We  were  in  no  mood  to  recede 
a  step  or  to  apologize  to  any  foreign  power  on  earth,  and  least  of  all  to 
England.  We  were  sore  over  the  exuberance  of  her  Southern  sympathy. 
We  had  expected  that,  with  her  anti-slavery  record  and  professions,  she  would 
be  the  staunch  friend  of  the  United  States.  But  was  this  feeling  reasonable 
on  our  part  ?  Had  not  our  government  been  constantly  asserting  that  slavery 
was  not  the  question  in  issue,  so  far  as  the  North  was  concerned  ;  and  that  we 
sought  only  to  re-establish  national  authority  over  "  the  Union  as  it  was"? 
Was  not  our  government,  in  respect  to  this  question,  the  true  exponent  of 
the  Union  sentiment?  At  that  time  England  might  well  have  said  to  the 
world  that  honors  were  easy  in  regard  to  slavery  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic. 

There  was  dense  ignorance  in  the  English  mind  as  to  our  feelings,  strength, 
and  resources.  There  was  still  greater  density  of  ignorance  in  that  regard  in 
most  of  the  other  European  countries.  The  English  press  was  constantly 
asserting  our  inability  to  restore  the  Union.  At  this  juncture  foreign  inter 
vention  would  have  been  inevitable  if  American  diplomacy  had  been  unequal 
to  the  task  before  it. 

Mr.  Seward  well  knew  that  there  was  in  our  own  estimation  and  in  the 
estimation  of  every  cabinet  of  continental  Europe  an  honorable  mode  of 
adjusting  the  Trent  imbroglio.  England,  of  all  the  European  powers, 
was  the  historic  advocate  of  the  right  of  search.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
fought  her  not  without  success  fifty  years  before,  in  asserting  our  doctrine  of 
the  freedom  of  the  seas,  and  the  rights  of  neutrals.  As  Captain  Wilkes  had 
acted  on  his  own  reponsibility,  could  not  Mr.  Sewarcl  gracefully  disavow  his 
act,  as  contrary  to  time-honored  American  policy?  Had  not  England,  alone, 
insisted  upon  maintaining  in  full  vigor  the  old  law  of  search?  Was  she 
unselfish  in  this  ?  She  was  strong  at  sea ;  she  was  a  marine  aggressor. 
In  that  character  had  she  not  acquired  colonial  possessions  in  the  four  quar 
ters  of  the  globe  ?  Her  policy  was  to  maintain  an  overpowering  naval  force 
with  which  to  overawe  the  seas.  We  were  not  afraid  of  her  on  sea  or 
land.  A  few  of  her  statesmen,  and  a  few  of  our  own,  who  remembered  the 
War  of  1812,  knew  that  our  power  was  capable  of  wonderful  development. 
England  had  been  building  an  ironclad  three  years  prior  to  1861,  at  an 
immense  outlay  of  money  for  that  time.  We  could  show  her  how  to  build 
a  Monitor  in  one  hundred  days.  That  floating  battery  could  have  held  her 
own  against  the  British  \Varrior,  or  any  of  the  rams  in  England's  dock- 


284  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

yards.  In  naval  power,  and  in  the  capacity  for  increasing  it,  we  were  more 
than  her  equal.  We  had  the  best  guns  of  the  day,  and  unlimited  war 
material.  We  were  better  able  then  to  cope  with  her  on  the  seas  than  we  are 
now,  or  shall  be  in  another  decade.  When  this  affair  occurred,  Europe  was 
in  a  ferment  over  the  ambitious  schemes  of  her  monarchs,  and  Russia 
was  our  friend.  The  Czar  and  his  people  still  rankled  over  the  unholy 
Anglo-French  alliance  with  the  "  Crescent"  against  the  "  Cross."  We  were 
three  to  one  against  the  South  in  men,  and  a  hundred  to  one  in  materials 
of  war,  wealth,  and  resources.  Tens  of  thousands  of  brave  Irishmen  were 
enrolled  in  our  army  corps,  everywhere  carrying  our  flag  to  victory.  A  war 
with  England  would  have  been  hailed  with  delight  by  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  their  brethren  who  would  flock  to  our  standard  eager  to  meet  their 
country's  hereditary  foe.  Would  not  Ireland  have  been  aflame  with  rebellion 
had  England  dared  to  press  upon  us  the  gage  of  battle  ? 

Whatever  the  unthinking,  passionate  masses  of  the  people  of  England  or 
of  our  own  country  may  have  thought,  there  were  statesmen  like  Seward  and 
Crittenden,  and  Palmerston  and  Russell,  who  knew  that  the  United  States 
could  be  a  giant  in  its  wrath  if  fully  aroused.  We  did  not  desire  a  foreign 
war  at  that  time  ;  but  the  English  Cabinet  knew  that  if  pushed  hard  we 
would  not  shrink  from  it.  It  was,  therefore,  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the 
Trent  affair  would  be  settled  by  diplomacy  and  not  by  arms.  To  say  that 
this  peaceful  result  was  fully  expected  by  the  English  Cabinet  or  our  own, 
would  be  incorrect.  Both  bodies  were  probably  uncertain  of  the  outcome 
of  the  correspondence  that  ensued  ;  but  there  must  have  been  a  presentiment 
that  it  would  not  be  war.  A  peaceful  settlement  must  have  been  suggested 
by  that  high  intuition  that  does  not  stop  to  reason.  A  war  with  England 
would  have  been  terrible  ;  but  it  would  have  brought  out  a  victor's  strength 
on  our  side. 

Mr.  Seward  treated  this  affair  in  a  manner  worthy  of  his  great  reputa 
tion  as  a  statesman,  and  honorable  to  the  Nation.  He  was  soon  master  of 
the  situation.  At  this  time  the  writer  was  more  inspired  by  enthusiasm 
than  now,  at  a  later  period  of  his  life.  He  thought  the  honor  of  our  flag  de 
manded  that  we  should  retain  the  prisoners.  It  was  not  a  domestic  quarrel. 
It  was  foreign,  and  his  spirit  was  fervid.  He  recked  not  of  consequences. 
At  that  time  he  considered  it  his  duty  to  impress  on  Congress  the  fact  that  the 
law  of  nations  would  uphold  us  in  this  course.  He  was  for  yielding  nothing 
to  Great  Britain.  "Nothing  to  her  arrogance,  passion,  or  pride,  when  we 
were  so  clearly  in  the  right."  The  following  extract  from  his  reply  to  Mr. 
Vallandigham's  prediction  that  these  men  would  be  surrendered  before  three 
months  "  in  the  face  of  a  threat,"  will  enable  the  reader  to  see  where  the 
writer  stood  on  that  issue.  And  Mr.  Seward's  course  will  show  how  much 
wiser  it  was  to  forego  the  advantage  of  legal  technicalities  and  put  national 
policy  on  a  broader  basis  : 


REPLY  TO  MR.  VALLANDIGHAM.  285 

"MR.  Cox.  I  hope  that  the  prediction  of  my  colleague  will  never  be  ful 
filled.  I  have  some  faith  in  the  sagacity  of  our  Secretary  of  State,  too  much 
faith  in  the  honor  of  the  people  of  the  country,  to  believe  that  they  will  ever 
permit  their  government,  in  a  case  of  clear  right,  to  so  dishonor  them.  The 
honor  of  a  nation  is  its  credit ;  its  credit  is  its  commerce  ;  its  commerce  is  its 
cash  ;  and  its  cash  brings  with  it  the  comforts  and  refinements  of  civilization. 
Where  you  touch  the  cash,  you  have  a  powerful  argument  with  any  nation. 
The  pecuniary  argument  is,  with  the  majority,  generally  stronger  than  the 
moral  argument.  When  moral  influences  combine  with  pecuniary,  they  are 
irresistible.  The  people  of  the  country,  however,  will  stand,  as  on  a  point 
of  honor,  by  the  rights  to  which  they  are  entitled  on  land  or  sea.  They  will 
look  with  jealousy  on  anything  that  has  a  tendency  toward  impairing  their 
nationality,  either  at  home  or  abroad.  When  they  fail  in  this,  they  will  de 
serve  expatriation  from  this,  the  cushioned  part  of  God's  footstool,  given  in 
high  trust  to  their  keeping. 

"I  was  about  to  state  the  proposition  on  which  I  believe  the  government 
can  plant  itself  in  this  matter.  I  do  not  propose  now  to  argue  it  elaborately. 
I  will  cite  but  few  authorities.  The  public  newspapers  have  been  teeming 
with  authorities,  some  relevant  and  some  irrelevant. 

u  We  are,  sir,  in  this  country  too  sensitive  of  foreign  opinion.  Mr.  Seward 
said  well  when  he  told  Mr.  Dayton  (our  minister  to  France)  that  it  was  no 
business  of  our  ambassadors  to  overhear  what  the  foreign  press  or  foreign 
ministers  said  about  us.  Our  duty  was  to  maintain  our  Union  in  its  integrity, 
and  our  position  as  a  leading  power  among  mankind,  regardless  of  the  de 
rision  and  hostility  of  kings  and  aristocrats  abroad.  I  know  that  we  naturally 
dislike  to  have  our  institutions  misrepresented,  and  our  destruction. predicted. 
There  is  much  in  the  old  Spanish  motto,  '  De  mi  rey,  solo  yo'  —  no  one 
shall  speak  of  our  king  except  ourselves ;  no  one  shall  speak  of  our  sover 
eignty  but  ourselves.  I  would  that  we  were  more  indifferent  to  the  poisoned 
shafts  of  foreign  malice,  barbed  as  they  are  by  aristocratic  hate  and  preten 
sion.  We  have  been  freely  scorned  by  nations  whose  moral  standard  is 
measured  by  their  commercial  profit  and  loss,  whose  national  honor  depends 
upon  a  cotton-pod,  whose  philanthropy  has  been  an  intermeddling  Pharisee- 
ism,  and  whose  complacent  neutrality,  so  promptly  assumed,  seems  to  glory 
in  the  humiliation  of  a  kindred  and  Christian  nation,  without  regret  or  sym 
pathy,  because  of  its  splendid  illustration  of  commercial  grandeur,  and  defi 
ant  adherence  to  democratic  government. 

"  Let  us,  sir,  pursue  our  duty  to  the  age  and  the  Nation  with  unruffled 
composure  and  determined  will.  Heaven  does  not  desert  the  undismayed. 
Even  though  there  may  be  foreign  troubles  impending,  for  us  to  despair  now 
is  to  die.  I  like  the  motto  of  the  old  Romans,  which  I  have,  in  this  period 
of  our  trial,  often  commended  to  my  constituents,  '  never  to  despair  of  the 


286  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Republic  ! '  They  used  to  write  it  upon  the  lintels  of  their  doors,  and  to  em 
blazon  it  upon  their  temples.  It  was  upon  the  lips  of  the  people,  it  was  in 
the  mouths  of  their  orators,  '  never  to  despair  of  the  Republic ' ;  and  when 
a  Roman  general,  even  in  the  agony  of  his  defeat,  gave  out  the  inspiring 
words,  '  never  despair  of  the  Republic,'  a  Roman  Senate  voted  him  a  tri 
umphal  entry  within  her  imperial  gates. 

"  Let  us  fling  aside  the  burden  of  our  national  woe,  lament  nothing  of  the 
irrevocable  past,  dare  all  that  is  just  and  constitutional ;  make  no  cruel  and 
disastrous  diversions  from  the  great  object  of  rescuing  our  nationality  ;  crush 
as  we  would  a  nest  of  adders  those  who  would  impair  its  proportions  as  well 
as  those  who  would  turn  us  from  that  object  to  other  and  ignoble  objects, 
involving  fresh  divisions,  broken  armies,  social  revolutions,  servile  insurrec 
tions,  perpetual  penalties,  and  eternal  hates ;  and  move,  each  and  all,  heart, 
soul,  body,  men,  means,  munitions,  intelligence,  and  patriotism,  to  the  grand 
and  only  object  —  the  restoration  of  our  dismantled  Union.  Thus  feeling 
and  thus  acting,  we  may  emerge  from  this  strife  of  struggling  states ;  and, 
like  the  fabled  demigod,  receive  added  strength  from  our  very  prostration. 
If,  sir,  we  observe  the  rules  of  right  and  honor  in  regulating  our  conduct 
abroad,  if  we  observe  the  object  of  the  war  that  is  now  upon  us,  as  the  Pres 
ident  proclaimed  it  to  the  people,  as  the  soldiers  of  the  Republic  understand 
it,  as  the  House  resolved  it  in  the  Crittenden  resolutions,  and  as  the  Consti 
tution  and  the  Union  demand,  we  may  be  assured  that  our  martial  resources, 
the  intelligence  and  valor  of  the  masses,  the  very  physical  geography  of  the 
country,  and  God  himself,  will  fight  for  us." 

But  an  older  hand  was  at  the  helm  of  the  State.  Mr.  Seward  made  this 
affair  the  occasion  of  vindicating  the  freedom  of  the  seas  on  time-honored 
American  principles,  which,  up  to  the  good  day  of  November  29,  1861,  the 
British  Government  had  declined  to  admit. 

On  that  day  the  British  Cabinet  convened  to  deliberate  on  the  steps  which 
should  be  taken  "  to  obtain  satisfaction  for  the  recent  outrage  on  the  British 
flag."  The  conclusion  reached  was  that  the  act  of  Captain  Wilkes  in 
"seizing  passengers  on  board  a  British  vessel  and  carrying  them  forcibly 
away,  was  a  clear  violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  one  for  which  repara 
tion  must  be  demanded."  This  was  the  result  heralded  to  the  public  the 
following  morning  in  the  London  Times.  The  point  made  was  that,  at  most, 
Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  were  but  civil  servants  of  a  hostile  power.  They 
were  traveling  from  one  neutral  port  to  another  in  a  neutral  vessel.  In  such 
a  case,  no  naval  officer  of  the  other  belligerent  had  discretion  to  seize  them 
until  the  contraband  character  of  their  employment  had  been  established  by 
a  prize  court. 

On  the  day  following  the  Cabinet  meeting,  Earl  Russell  addressed  a  dis 
patch  to  Lord  Lyons,  the  British  Minister  at  Washington.  It  gave  him  offi- 


MR.  SEWARD  TO  LORD  LYONS.  287 

cial  information  that  Her  Majesty's  Government,  bearing  in  mind  the  friendly 
relations  that  had  long  subsisted  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
were  willing  to  believe  that,  in  respect  to  the  "  aggression"  committed,  our 
naval  officer  was  not  acting  according  to  his  instructions,  or  else,  that  he 
"  greatly  misunderstood  them."  Her  Majesty's  Government,  therefore, 
trusted  that  the  United  States  Government  would,  of  its  own  accord,  offer 
to  the  British  Government  such  redress  as  would  satisfy  the  British  nation. 
This  redress  was  the  liberation  of  the  four  gentlemen,  and  their  delivery  to 
the  British  ambassador,  in  order  that  they  might  again  be  placed  under  British 
protection  ;  and  the  tender  of  a  suitable  apology  for  the  "  aggression"  which 
had  been  committed.  If  these  terms  were  not  proposed  by  Mr.  Seward 
himself,  Lord  Lyons  was  instructed  to  propose  them  to  him.  The  instruc 
tions  were  duly  carried  out. 

Mr.  Seward  replied  to  Lord  Lyons  on  the  26th  of  December.  He  observed 
the  customary  diplomatic  style.  He  commenced  by  saying  :  "  My  Lord  :  Earl 
Russell's  dispatch  of  November  3oth,  a  copy  of  which  you  have  left  with  me 
at  my  request,  is  of  the  following  effect,  namely,"  etc.  The  secretary  then 
went  on  to  review  the  contents  of  the  note.  He  stated  that  it  had  been  sub 
mitted  to  the  President.  He  presented  the  facts  from  his  own  sources  of 
information.  He  accepted  the  suggestion  of  the  British  Cabinet.  He  assured 
his  lordship  that  no  instruction  had  been  given  to  Captain  Wilkes  to  arrest 
the  four  persons  named. 

Mr.  Seward  was  entirely  correct  in  this  statement.  Captain  Wilkes  had 
acted  solely  on  his  own  responsibility.  He  had  acted  according  to  his  own 
views  of  right  and  duty.  But  this  was  not  said  with  a  view  of  shirking  any 
responsibility  for  the  consequences  of  the  act.  "  The  British  Government," 
said  Secretary  Seward,  "will  justly  infer  that  the  United  States  not  only 
have  had  no  purpose,  but  even  no  thought,  of  forcing  into  discussion  the 
question  which  has  arisen,  or  any  other  which  could  affect  in  any  way  the 
sensibilities  of  the  British  nation."  "  Your  lordship  will  now  perceive," 
continued  Mr.  Seward,  "that  the  case  now  before  us,  instead  of  present 
ing  a  merely  flagrant  act  of  violence  on  the  part  of  Captain  Wilkes,  as 
might  well  be  inferred  from  the  incomplete  statement  of  it  that  went  up  to 
the  British  Government,  was  undertaken  as  a  simple,  legal,  and  customary 
belligerent  proceeding  by  Captain  Wilkes,  to  arrest  and  capture  a  neutral 
vessel  engaged  in  carrying  contraband  of  war  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the 
insurgents." 

Mr.  Seward  concluded  his  statement  of  the  case  by  asserting  that  the 
persons  taken  from  the  Trent  were  citizens  of  the  United  States.  This  was  a 
gentle  allusion  to  England's  course  in  regard  to  her  claims  of  jurisdiction 
over  British  subjects  found  in  neutral  ships  in  days  gone  by,  when  she  had 
asserted  the  right  to  take  them  not  only  off  our  merchant  vessels  but  out  of 
our  ships  of  war,  by  force  and  arms.  He  then  came  to  the  issue. 


288  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

"  The  question  before  us  is,"  said  Mr.  Seward,  "  whether  the  proceeding 
was  authorized  by  and  conducted  according  to  the  law  of  nations.  It  involves 
the  following  inquiries  : 

"First.  Were  the  persons  named  and  their  supposed  dispatches  contra 
band  of  war? 

"Second.  Might  Captain  Wilkes  lawfully  stop  and  search  the  Trent  for 
these  contraband  persons  and  dispatches  ? 

"  Third.     Did  he  exercise  that  right  in  a  lawful  and  proper  manner? 

"Fourth.  Having  found  the  contraband  persons  on  board  and  in  pre 
sumed  possession  of  the  contraband  dispatches,  had  he  a  right  to  capture  the 
persons  ? 

"Fifth.  Did  he  exercise  the  right  of  capture  in  the  manner  allowed  and 
recognized  by  the  law  of  nations? 

"If  all  these  inquiries,"  said  he,  "shall  be  resolved  in  the  affirmative,  the 
British  Government  will  have  no  claim  for  reparation." 

Discussing  these  questions,  seriatim,  from  the  law  of  nations,  especially 
as  read  from  British  authorities,  our  Secretary  of  State  decided  the  first  four 
inquiries  in  the  affirmative.  It  was  only  in  respect  to  the  fifth  question  that 
any  difficulty  of  solution  occurred  to  him  :  "  The  books  of  law  were  dumb  " 
in  regard  to  it.  He  proved  that  a  belligerent  power  has  the  right  to  prevent 
"an  officer,  soldier,  sailor,  minister,  messenger,  or  courier  of  the  enemy  from 
proceeding  under  a  neutral  flag  from  one  neutral  port  to  another  in  his  unlaw 
ful  voyage,  and  reaching  the  destined  scene  of  his  injurious  service."  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  was  admitted  that  the  person  captured  might  be  inno 
cent  of  such  contraband  character.  Hence,  if  he  were,  he  would  be  entitled 
to  the  protection  of  the  neutral  flag.  In  such  case,  said  Mr.  Seward,  the 
only  way  was  to  convey  the  suspected  person  and  the  suspected  vessel  into 
port,  and  there  try  the  question  whether  the  vessel  was  acting  contraband : 
* '  You  can  prove  it  to  be  so  by  proving  the  suspected  men  to  be  contraband  ; 
and  the  court  must  then  determine  the  vessel  to  be  contraband."  Still  there 
had  been  no  judgment  for  or  against  the  captured  persons.  "  One  may  well 
express,"  said  the  Secretary  of  State,  "his  surprise  when  told  that  the  law  of 
nations  has  furnished  no  more  reasonable,  practical,  and  perfect  mode  than 
this  of  determining  questions  of  such  grave  import  between  sovereign  powers." 

So  much  for  the  legal  aspect  of  the  case.  Here  Mr.  Seward  declined  to 
take  advantage  of  the  law  that  justified  the  act  complained  of.  "As  Captain 
Wilkes,"  said  he,  "from  combined  sentiments  of  prudence  and  generosity 
released  the  Trent,  and  thus  prevented  this  circuitous  mode  of  a  judicial 
settlement  of  the  contraband  character  of  the  persons  arrested  and  their 
dispatches";  as  "the  claim  of  the  British  Government  was  not  made  in  a 
discourteous  manner ;  as  this  government  was  not  tempted  at  all  by  sugges 
tions  that  cases  might  be  found  in  history  where  Great  Britain  refused  to  yield 
to  other  nations,  and  even  to  ourselves,"  claims  like  that  which  was  now  be- 


THE  PRISONERS  RELEASED. 


289 


fore  him,  our  Secretary  of  State,  putting  behind  him  "suggestions  of  this 
kind,"  preferred  to  express  his  satisfaction,  that  by  the  adjustment  of  the  pres 
ent  case  "upon  principles  confessedly  American,"  and  yet,  as  he  trusted, 
mutually  satisfactory  to  both  nations,  "  a  question  would  be  finally  and  rightly 
settled  between  them,  which  heretofore  had  exhausted  not  only  all  forms  of 
peaceful  discussion  but  also  the  arbitrament  of  war  itself,  for  more  than  half 
a  century  alienated  the  two  countries  from  each  other,  and  perplexed  with 
fears  and  apprehensions  all  other  nations."  In  conclusion,  Lord  Lyons  was 
informed  that  the  four  persons  in  question  were  then  held  in  military  custody 
at  Fort  Warren,  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  and  that  they  would  be  cheer 
fully  liberated  whenever  the  British  ambassador  would  be  pleased  to  indicate 
a  time  and  place  for  receiving  them. 

There  was  not  one  word  of  apology  in  Secretary  Seward's  letter.  He  stated 
the  facts.  He  gave  the  British  construction  of  the  law  of  nations  bearing  on 
them.  He  said  :  "  I  trust  I  have  shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  British  Gov 
ernment  that  this  government  neither  meditated  nor  practiced  any  deliberate 
wrong  in  the  transaction  to  which  they  have  called  attention  ;  and,  on  the 
contrary,  that  what  has  happened  has  been  simply  an  inadvertency,  consisting 
in  a  departure  by  the  naval  officer  [alluding  to  the  release  of  the  Trent,  by 
which  a  judicial  adjudication  of  the  question  of  contraband  was  prevented] , 
free  from  any  wrongful  motive,  from  a  rule  uncertainly  established,  and 
probably,  by  the  several  parties  concerned,  either  imperfectly  understood  or 
entirely  unknown."  u  For  .his  error,"  said  Mr.  Seward,  "the  British  Gov 
ernment  has  a  right  to  expect  the  same  reparation  that  we,  as  an  independent 
state,  should  expect  from  Great  Britain  or  from  any  other  friendly  nation  in 
a  similar  case." 

Our  flag  was  not  lowered  in  the  Trent  affair.  Mr.  Seward  expressly 
waived  all  the  advantages  of  the  British  precedents  and  doctrine  of  search. 
He  placed  the  release,  to  quote  his  own  words,  upon  "  principles  that  consti 
tute  a  large  portion  of  the  distinctive  policy  by  which  the  United  States  have 
developed  the  resources  of  a  continent,  and,  thus  becoming  a  considerable 
maritime  power,  have  won  the  respect  and  confidence  of  many  nations." 
He  alluded  to  the  doctrine  laid  down  in  1804  by  James  Madison,  when  Sec 
retary  of  State  in  the  Administration  of  President  Jefferson,  in  the  instruc 
tions  given  to  James  Monroe,  our  minister  to  England  at  that  time,  ^he 
British  Government  was  well  informed  in  regard  to  the  American  doctrine. 
It  was  asserted  in  our  earliest  diplomacy.  It  was  spread  to  the  breeze  from 
the  mast-head  of  one  of  our  frigates  in  the  War  of  1812  in  the  shape  of  a 
banner  with  this  device  :  "  Free  Ships  and  Free  Trade."  The  doctrine  was 
that  the  ocean  ought  to  be  the  highway  of  nations,  free  to  commerce  and 
non-combatants.  Under  this  banner  the  gallant  David  Porter  made  his  cele 
brated  cruise  in  the  Essex  that  covered  our  navy  with  glory.  This  doctrine 
included  the  text,  that  "  Wherever  property  found  in  a  neutral  vessel  is  sup- 


290  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

posed  to  be  liable  on  any  ground  to  capture  and  condemnation,  the  rule  in  all 
cases  is,  that  the  question  shall  not  be  decided  by  the  captor ;  but  be  carried 
before  a  legal  tribunal  where  a  regular  trial  may  be  had,  and  where  the  cap 
tor  himself  is  liable  to  damages  for  an  abuse  of  power."  It  covered  the  cas& 
of  persons  also.  No  naval  officer  ought  to  be  permitted  to  usurp  the  func 
tions  of  a  maritime  court.  It  was  to  maintain  this  doctrine  against  the  arbi 
trary  searches  of  American  ships  by  British  naval  officers,  and  the  arbitrary 
taking  from  them  of  American  citizens  to  be  pressed  into  British  service,  that 
we  declared  war  against  England  in  1812,  when  we  had  not  a  score  of  ships- 
of  war,  and  that  power  had  over  nine  hundred  armed  vessels  and  one  hun 
dred  and  forty  thousand  men  in  her  naval  service. 

Of  course,  the  demand  of  the  British  Government  could  not  fail  to  elicit 
public  discussion.  The  press  teemed  with  editorials  and  communications. 
These  took  their  hue  from  the  international  law  which  fully  justified  the 
act  of  Captain  Wilkes.  The  House  of  Representatives  gave  him  a  vote  of 
thanks.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  warmly  approved  of  his  conduct.  If 
the  popular  wish  and  the  desires  of  the  popular  branch  of  the  Congress  had 
been  deferred  to  by  Mr.  Seward,  there  would  have  been  no  surrender  of  the 
prisoners. 

The  visitor  who  desires  to  see  the  celebrated  places  in  and  around  Wash 
ington  City,  first  directs  his  eye  down  the  waters  of  the  Potomac  toward 
Mount  Vernon  and  its  mausoleum.  Then  he  seeks  the  Capitol.  After  ex 
hausting  that  interesting  object  from  crypt  to  dome,  he  visits  the  White  House 
as  its  co-ordinate,  and  then  the  Departments,  which  are  its  subordinates  ;  and 
the  Monument  which  now  dominates  all.  Perhaps  the  Smithsonian  Institu 
tion  and  its  museums  allure  his  eye  ;  and  then  he  inquires  for  the  Van  Ness 
Mansion,  or  the  Duddington  House, —  for  these  are  landmarks  of  the  earlier 
years  of  this  changed  and  changeful  metropolis.  Then  he  seeks  the  Army 
Medical  Museum  —  once  a  theatre  —  whose  most  tragical  association  is  that 
of  the  assassination  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  He  takes  a  glance  across  the  street 
at  the  house  where  the  great  President  died.  By  a  system  of  mnemonics  not 
at  all  illogical,  he  recalls  the  evening  of  the  loth  of  April,  1865.  Washington 
was  then  rejoicing  with  illuminations  and  victory.  The  war  had  closed. 
Four  days  of  uninterrupted  joy  filled  every  heart.  Then,  the  coward's  pistol 
and  dagger  blanched  every  cheek,  and  stopped  the  heart  and  hope  of  the 
entire  Republic. 

By  a  similar  association  the  visitant  turns  to  an  old  and  solid  brick  struc 
ture  on  Lafayette  Square.  It  is  now  the  Commissary-General's  office.  It 
was  once  a  club-house.  During  the  time  of  this  famous  Trent  affair,  it  was 
occupied  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  William  H.  Seward. 

The  writer  has  one  association  belonging  to  this  mansion.  It  is  not  that 
of  the  dreadful  night  when  assassins  struck  down  the  great  secretary  ;  but  it 


A  DINNER  PARTY.  291 

is  one  of  an  earlier  and  more  delightful  quality.  It  is  one  in  strange  con 
trast  with  the  gloom  which  makes  this  mansion  sombre  in  the  calendar  of 
crime,  and  famous  in  the  annals  of  local  history. 

Being  upon  the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  when  the  Trent  affair  occurred,  the  writer  attended  a  dinner  given  by 
the  Secretary  at  this  then  happy  home.  This  was  at  a  time  when  men  held 
their  breath  in  trepidation,  lest  Great  Britain  and  the  Powers  of  Europe 
might  make  the  Trent  matter  the  pretext  to  consummate  their  recognition 
of  Southern  independence.  Some  feared  that  a  disparted  Republic  would 
have  to  give  way  before  the  jealous  encroachments  of  those  who  sought  to 
divide  our  country  as  they  endeavored  to  imperialize  Mexico. 

The  delightful  interchanges  of  thought  between  the  persons  at  that  dinner 
are  not  so  important  as  the  fact  that  transpired  toward  its  close.  After  the 
ceremonies  of  introduction,  and  the  tenders  of  politeness  to  Mrs.  Frederick 
W.  Sewarcl  and  Miss  Olive  Risley  —  the  adopted  daughter  of  the  house  — 
the  guests  who  had  been  received  by  these  ladies  moved  to  the  hospitable 
dining-hall.  On  the  right  of  Mr.  Seward  was  seated  burly  English  hearti 
ness  incarnated  in  Mr.  Anthony  Trollope,  the  novelist.  His  presence  was 
almost  a  surprise,  if  not  a  satire  on  the  occasion,  as  it  concluded.  At  the 
other  end  of  the  table  sat  John  J  Crittenden.  He  was  then  chairman  of 
Foreign  Affairs  in  the  House.  The  author  was  on  his  right,  as  he  was  nearer 
by  sympathy  to  him  than  others  on  the  committee.  He  used  to  say  to  the 
writer  :  u  My  young  friend,  when  I  was  of  your  age,  I  did  all  the  work  and 
the  older  members  received  the  merit  marks.  You  may  do  the  work,  sir, 
and  I  will  take  the  credit."  With  his  grave  humor  and  hearty  confidence, 
he  was  wont  to  parcel  out  to  the  writer  no  inconsiderable  quantity  of  the 
work  of  this  most  arduous  of  committees.  Thus  it  happened  that  a  bill  for 
the  relief  of  the  owners  of  the  Perthshire,  seized  by  us,  came  to  the  hand 
of  the  writer  for  a  report.  The  chairman  was  not  a  little  astonished  when 
he  found  that  his  subordinate,  on  the  iyth  of  December,  1861,  was  dilating 
on  the  Trent  case,  and  quoting  Robinson's  Reports  to  justify  the  detention  of 
the  contraband  plenipotentiaries,  upon  British  precedents  and  conduct. 

The  dinner  was  proceeding  with  the  usual  social  murmur  of  chat  and 
vivacity  of  repartee.  Bonbons  of  good-will  were  tossed  about  from  Senator 
to  Secretary,  and  from  minister  to  member.  Governor  Crittenden  was  regal 
ing  the  ear  of  his  neighbor,  between  the  soup  and  the  sherry,  with  an  account 
of  the  War  of  1812,  and  his  experience  as  a  Kentucky  soldier  in  that  war. 
He  had,  while  serving  as  aid-de-camp  on  the  staff  of  the  general  commanding 
the  Kentucky  troops,  carried  his  sword  through  the  Columbus,  Ohio,  District. 
As  that  part  of  Ohio  was  represented  by  the  writer,  the  interest  grew  apace. 
All  present  perplexities  were  forgotten  in  the  revival  of  the  old  prejudices 
against  Great  Britain,  the  incidents  of  the  Canadian  border,  and  of  Hull's 
disgraceful  surrender.  The  dinner  progressed.  One  incident  led  to  another, 


292  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

until  Mr.  Seward,  with  a  brusqueness  entirely  prepense  upon  his  part  but 
surprising  to  us,  drew  the  attention  of  all  by  saying : 

"  GENTLEMEN  :  There  is  only  one  man  in  this  country  to  whom  I  allowed 
unrestricted  communication  with  Jefferson  Davis,  since  the  war.  I  never 
asked  him  what  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Davis.  I  trusted  his  honor  and  loyalty. 
He  is  here.  I  drink  the  health  of  Mr.  Crittenden  !  " 

Mr.  Crittenden,  throwing  back  his  shoulders,  as  was  his  custom  when 
pleased  or  excited,  said  : 

"  MR.  SECRETARY  :  I  never  told  you  what  I  wrote  to  Jeff.  Davis.  I  will 
tell  you  now,  sir.  I  have  two  sons  in  the  war  —  one  is  a  Union  and  the 
other  a  Confederate  general.  They  are  both,  of  course,  dear  to  my  heart. 
I  wrote  Mr.  Davis,  l  for  God's  sake,  sir,  since  you  have  the  gallantry  of  one 
of  my  boys  on  your  side,  don't  send  him  to  or  against  Old  Kentucky.' " 

This  little  by-play  sent  out  a  gleam  of  pleasure  that  sparkled  around  the 
board.  It  was  intended  by  Mr.  Seward  to  placate  Mr.  Crittenden  for  what 
was  to  follow,  and  it  did.  Then  Mr.  Seward,  with  his  exquisite  diplomatic 
savoir-faire,  said,  looking  around  the  board  : 

"I  think  I  must  now  trust  my  guests,  as  I  trusted  Mr.  Crittenden.  I 
will  divulge  to  you  a  secret.  To-day,  the  order  was  issued  to  release  Mason 
and  Slidell." 

A  dead  pause  ensued !  All  awaited  the  response  of  the  venerable  and 
patriotic  chairman  of  Foreign  Affairs.  He  was  known  not  to  be  partial  to 
England.  He  was  not  entirely  cordial  with  the  Confederate  ambassadors. 
With  a  puzzled  look  of  anger  and  chagrin,  the  great  Kentuckian  hesitated 
for  a  moment.  He  seemed  held  back  by  the  hand  of  courtesy.  He  then 
brought  down  his  dainty  glass  of  sherry  with  a  sudden  crash  upon  the  table. 
The  little  fragments  flew  about  his  plate.  The  golden  contents  bejeweled  the 
writer's  investments.  Then  pausing  another  moment,  half  ironically  and  half 
jocosely,  he  exclaimed : 

"  A  good  riddance,  sir  !  You  sent  them  away  none  too  soon,  sir  !  They 
were  doing  much  mischief  here  "  ;  and,  regardless  of  the  occasion,  a  little 
murky  cloud  of  profanity  dimmed  the  atmosphere  about  the  table.  Never, 
since  the  days  of  good  old  Uncle  Toby,  was  emphasis  more  excusable. 

Then  the  Secretary  gave  us  the  observations  which  appeared  in  the  Na 
tional  Intelligencer  the  next  morning ;  and  which  this  chapter  is  intended 
to  illustrate. 

It  was  not  until  nine  days  after  the  release  of  the  prisoners  that  the  pub 
lic  were  brought  to  realize  what  a  great  diplomatic  victory  Mr.  Seward  had 
won.  The  demand  of  the  British  Government  had  no  foundation  in  interna 
tional  law.  It  was  against  British  precedent.  It  harmonized  only  with  dis 
tinctively  American  doctrine.  It  would  have  come  well  from  our  government 
had  Great  Britain  been  the  aggressor.  Mr.  Sumner,  than  whom  no  one  was 


A  DIPLOMATIC  DUEL.  293 

better  qualified  to  discuss  the  true  merits  of  Mr.  Seward's  course,  delivered 
a  masterly  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  9th  of  January,  1862.  He  set  the 
public  mind  at  ease  by  showing  that  we  had  emerged  from  the  impending 
trouble  not  only  with  honor,  but  by  putting  England  in  a  position  in  which 
neither  former  diplomacy  nor,  as  Secretary  Seward  said,  "  the  arbitrament 
of  war  "  itself,  had  placed  her. 

In  the  Napoleonic  wars,  when  England  had  closed  the  coast  of  Europe 
from  the  Elbe  to  Brest  by  a  paper  blockade,  and  her  own  ports  were  similarly 
closed,  our  ships  were  everywhere  subjected  to  the  most  arbitrary  searches 
by  British  and  French  cruisers.  Even  our  war  vessels  were  fired  into  on  our 
own  coast.  We  were  treated  with  the  utmost  contempt.  The  British  press 
and  British  officers  openly  boasted  that  we  "  could  not  be  kicked  into  a  war." 
—  We  taught  them  a  wholesome  lesson  on  this  point  afterwards. —  We  had 
always  refused  to  recognize  the  right  of  any  belligerent  power  to  take  from 
an  American  neutral  ship,  under  the  right  of  search,  "  any  description  of 
persons  except  soldiers  in  the  actual  service  of  the  enemy."  Since  the  estab 
lishment  of  the  United  States  as  an  independent  government,  our  constant 
endeavor  had  been  to  get  Great  Britain  to  agree  to  this  doctrine,  but  without 
success.  Mr.  Sumner  applied  this  historic  fact  in  his  grand  speech  : 

"  In  the  struggle,"  said  he,  "between  Laertes  and  Hamlet,  Hamlet  was 
armed  with  the  rapier  of  Laertes,  and  Laertes  was  armed  with  the  rapier  of 
Hamlet.  And  now,  on  this  sensitive  question,  a  similar  exchange  has  oc 
curred.  Great  Britain  is  armed  with  American  principles,  while  to  us  are 
left  only  those  British  principles  which  throughout  our  history  have  been 
constantly,  deliberately,  and  solemnly  rejected."  But  it  was  only  for  a 
moment  that  Mr.  Seward  fenced  with  the  rapier  of  Earl  Russell.  He  soon 
threw  it  aside  as  a  mere  foil.  He  recovered  his  own  American  weapon. 
He  saluted  his  disarmed  antagonist.  Great  Britain  bowed  to  a  rule  of  con 
flict  for  which  we  had  so  long  contended.  As  Mr.  Sumner  aptly  said,  "  We 
did  not  even  stoop  to  conquer." 

Great  Britain  had  at  last  admitted  our  doctrine.  The  high  seas  were  free 
to  neutral  ships  in  the  transportation  of  all  persons  excepting  only  ' '  soldiers 
in  the  actual  service  of  the  enemy."  Hence,  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  were 
permitted  to  re-embark  in  their  fruitless  mission  on  an  ocean  whose  waters 
would  be  forever  after  free  from  unlawful  search  and  British  arrogance. 
Where  our  humiliation  had  been  sought  we  won  the  laurels  of  victory,  and 
all  the  cabinets  of  continental  Europe  applauded. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


THE  CONFEDERATE  AND  OTHER  GOVERNORS. 

ISIIAM  G.  HARRIS,  OF  TENNESSEE  —  HEADING  THE  LIST  OF  FIVE  EXECUTIVES  — 
HIS  OFFICIAL  TRUSTS  — HIS  CONGRESSIONAL  SERVICE  — GOVERNOR  FROM  1857 
TO  1865— HIS  ENERGY  AND  ABILITY -HIS  EXILE,  RETURN,  AND  PREFER 
MENT— SERVICE  AND  POSITION  IN  THE  SENATE;  JOHN  LETCHER,  OF  VIR 
GINIA—HIS  EARLY  LIFE  — HIS  SERVICE  IN  VIRGINIA  AND  IN  CONGRESS 

—  WATCH-DOG    OF    THE    TREASURY  —  HIS    ACTION    AS    GOVERNOR    DURING 
THE    CIVIL  WAR,  AND   HIS  DEATH  — SAM:   HOUSTON  —  HIS    ECCENTRIC  LIFE 
AND  HIS  COURAGEOUS  CONDUCT  —  THE  BATTLES  OF  TEXAS  INDEPENDENCE 

—  HIS  SERVICE  TO  ANNEXATION  — GOVERNOR  AND   SENATOR  — HIS    HESITA 
TION   AS  TO    SECESSION— JOSEPH   E.   BROWN,  OF  GEORGIA  —  GEORGIA'S  RE 
SOURCES  -  HER  WISDOM  AT  THE  END  OF  THE  WAR  —  HER  FOREMOST  GOV 
ERNOR  —  HIS    BUSINESS  ENERGY  DURING  THE  WAR  AND  AT  ITS  END  —  HIS 
CONTESTS    WITH   THE    CONFEDERATE   GOVERNMENT  —  GOVERNOR  VANCE'S 
LETTER    TO    HIM -CONSCRIPTION    DEFIED  — HIS  CHARACTER  —  HIS  CHARI 
TIES—HIS  PRESENT  SERVICE  —  ZEBULON  B.  VANCE,  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA  — 
BORN    AMONG   THE    MOUNTAINS  —  REPRESENTATIVE    OF     BUNCOMBE  —  HIS 
LOVE  OF  BOOKS— THE   BASIS  OF  HIS  EDUCATION  —  HIS  UNCLE'S  LIBRARY  — 
HIS  EXPERIENCES   IN   CONGRESS    AND    IN   WAR  —  HIS    EXECUTIVE    ABILITY 
AND  INTEGRITY. 

IN  some  of  the  preceding  chapters  there  has  been  more  emphasis  laid 
upon  abstract  theories  and  polities,  than  upon  the  personal  administra 
tion  of  affairs  and  the  actual  legislation  which  the  Executive  branch  has 
sought  to  carry  out.      But  a  history  of  these  stirring  times,  in  a  Federal 
sense,  would   be  incomplete  without  some  reflections  upon  the  constituent 
elements  of  the   Federal   system,  namely,  the   states  and   their  exponents. 
These  exponents  were  their  executives.     A  list  of  the  Confederate  governors 
of  1861  is  as  follows  :     Alabama,  Andrew  B.  Moore  ;  Arkansas,  Henry  M. 
Rector ;    Florida,  John  Milton ;    Georgia,    Joseph  E.  Brown ;    Louisiana, 
Thomas  O.  Moore ;   Mississippi,  John  J..  Pettus ;  Missouri,  Claiborne  F. 
Jackson ;    Kentucky,   Beriah   Magoffin ;    North    Carolina,  John  W.  Ellis ; 
South  Carolina,  Francis  W.  Pickens  ;  Tennessee,  Isham  G.  Harris  ;    Texas, 
Samuel  Houston  ;  and  Virginia,  John  Letcher. 


ROSTER  OF  CONFEDERATE  AND  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNORS.     295 

Each  of  these  Confederate  governors,  — except  Governor  Ellis,  of  North 
Carolina,  who  died  and  was  succeeded  by  H.  T.  Clark,  the  Speaker  of  the 
State  Senate,  and  General  Sam  :  Houston,  of  Texas,  who  was  succeeded  by 
F.  R.  Lubbock, — remained  in  office  during  1862  and  1863.  Several  of  them 
served  during  1864.  One  of  them,  John  Milton,  of  Florida,  served  until  the 
surrender,  in  1865. 

The  governors  of  Kentucky  and  Missouri  are  included  in  this  list,  from 
the  fact  that  one  took  a  prominent  part  as  a  Confederate  general,  while  the 
other  was  a  Unionist,  though  not  favorable  to  aggressive  war  measures. 
He  resigned  in  1862.  He  was  succeeded  by  James  F.  Robinson,  a  Unionist. 

In  1864,  the  Confederate  governors  were :  Alabama,  Thomas  H. 
Watts ;  Arkansas,  Harris  Flannegan ;  Florida,  John  Milton ;  Georgia, 
Joseph  E.  Brown  ;  Louisiana,  Henry  W.  Allen  ;  Mississippi,  Charles  Clarke  ; 
North  Carolina,  Zebulon  B.  Vance ;  South  Carolina,  Milledge  L.  Bonham  ; 
Texas,  Pendleton  Murrah  ;  and  Virginia,  John  Letcher. 

Missouri,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee  had  ceased,  in  1864,  to  have  resi 
dent  Confederate  governors.  The  above  names  include  those  who  were  in 
office  at  the  time  of  the  surrender  at  Appomattox. 

In  1863,  Francis  H.  Pierpont  was  elected  governor  of  Virginia,  by  the 
people  inhabiting  the  western  counties.  When  these  counties  formed  a 
constitution  for  West  Virginia,  Arthur  I.  Boreman  was  chosen  governor. 

Michael  Hahn  was  elected  governor  of  Louisiana  by  the  so-called  loyal 
people,  in  February,  1865.  In  Tennessee,  William  G.  Brownlow  was 
elected  in  1865,  to  succeed  the  provisional,  or  military  governor,  Andrew 
Johnson,  appointed  by  President  Lincoln. 

The  provisional  governors  appointed  by  President  Andrew  Johnson 
were  as  follows :  North  Carolina,  William  W.  Holden  ;  South  Carolina, 
Benjamin  F.  Perry  ;  Georgia,  James  Johnson  ;  Alabama,  Lewis  E.  Par 
sons  ;  Mississippi,  William  L.  Sharkey ;  Florida,  William  Marvin ;  and 
Texas,  Andrew  J.  Hamilton. 

President  Johnson  recognized  Michael  Hahn  as  elected  by  the  people,  to 
be  governor  of  Louisiana. 

William  G.  Brownlow  was  elected  in  like  manner  as  governor  of  Ten 
nessee,  Francis  H.  Pierpont  as  governor  of  Virginia,  and  Is;>ac  Murphy  as 
governor  of  Arkansas. 

The  military  commanders  under  the  Reconstruction  acts  of  1867  were 
named  on  the  nth  of  March,  1867,  by  the  order  of  Adjutant-General  E.  D. 
Townsend.  The  order  is  number  10.  It  reads  thus  : 

"  In  pursuance  of  the  act  of  Congress,  entitled  '  An  Act  to  provide  for 
the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  states,'  the  President  directs  the 
following  assignments  to  be  made  : 

"  First  District,  State  of  Virginia,  to  be  commanded  by  Brevet  Maj.- 
Gen.  J.  M.  Schofield.  Headquarters,  Richmond,  Virginia. 


296  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

"  Second  District,  consisting  of  North  and  South  Carolina,  to  be  com 
manded  by  Maj.-Gen.  Daniel  E.  Sickles.  Headquarters,  Columbia,  South 
Carolina. 

"  Third  District,  consisting  of  the  states  of  Georgia,  Florida,  and  Ala 
bama,  to  be  commanded  by  Maj.-Gen.  George  H.  Thomas.  Headquarters, 
Montgomery,  Alabama. 

"  Fourth  District,  consisting  of  the  states  of  Mississippi  and  Arkansas,  to 
be  commanded  by  Brevet  Maj.-Gen.  Edward  O.  C.  Ord.  Headquarters, 
Vicksburg,  Mississippi. 

"  Fifth  District,  consisting  of  the  states  of  Louisiana  and  Texas,  to  be 
commanded  by  Maj.-Gen.  Philip  H.  Sheridan.  Headquarters,  New  Orleans, 
Louisiana." 

By  an  order  dated  March  15,  1867,  Maj.-Gen.  George  H.  Thomas,  by 
his  request,  was  relieved  from  the  duty  of  commanding  the  Third  District. 
Major-General  John  Pope  was  assigned  to  that  district. 

General  Schofield  having  been  appointed  Secretary  of  War,  was  suc 
ceeded  in  the  command  of  the  First  District  on  the  2d  of  June,  1868,  by 
Major-General  Stoneman.  On  March  5,  1869,  an  order  was  issued  for  the 
removal  of  General  Stoneman,  and  Maj.-Gen.  E.  R.  S.  Canby  was  ap 
pointed  to  succeed  him.  But  he  was  not  relieved  until  March  31.  In  the 
meantime  he  removed  Gov.  H.  H.  Wells  and  assumed  the  functions  of  the 
civil  government.  On  the  3ist,  General  Stoneman  was  relieved  by  Gen. 
A.  S.  Webb,  who  held  the  command  until  General  Canby  could  arrive. 
General  Webb's  first  act  was  to  restore  Wells  to  the  office  of  governor. 
General  Canby  took  command  of  the  district  on  the  2Oth  of  April. 

General  Sickles  was  removed  from  the  command  of  the  Second  District 
on  the  26th  of  August,  1867,  and  was  succeeded  by  Brevet  Major-General 
Canby.  On  Dec.  28,  1867,  General  Pope  was  relieved  from  the  command 
of  the  Third  District,  and  Maj.-Gen.  George  G.  Meade  was  appointed  to 
succeed  him.  Dec.  28,  1867,  General  Ord  was  relieved  from  the  com 
mand  of  the  Fourth  District,  and  Brevet  Maj.-Gen.  Irwin  McDowell  was 
appointed  to  succeed  him.  On  Nov.  29,  1867,  Maj.-Gen.  W.  S.  Hancock 
was  appointed  to  succeed  General  Sheridan  in  the  command  of  the  Fifth 
District. 

In  all  these  changes  there  will  appear  much  to  ponder  over.  The  ex 
ecutive  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  legislature  ;  and  the  attempt  to  resur 
rect  order  out  of  chaos  by  military  rule  seems  to  have  been  a  great  fiasco. 

Sketches  of  a  few  of  these  governors  and  their  service  are  not  here  inap 
propriate.  They  were  all  men  of  ability,  but  none  more  so  than  Governors 
Harris,  Letcher,  Houston,  Brown,  and  Vance.  No  one  of  this  galaxy  of 
executive  intelligence  and  determination  was  more  sagacious  and  courageous 
than  the  governor  of  Tennessee,  whose  portrait  is  at  the  head  of  the  five 
Confederate  governors  in  plate  three  of  the  volume. 


GOVERNOR  ISHAM  G.  HARRIS,  OF  TENNESSEE.  297 

It  has  been  asserted  that  what  Governor  Andrew  was  to  Massachusetts, 
or  even  a  more  energetic  man,  Governor  Morton,  of  Indiana,  was  to  his 
state  and  to  the  North,  that  was  Isham  G.  Harris  to  Tennessee  and  the 
South.  At  no  time  did  he  shrink  from  the  performance  of  any  duty,  however 
perilous,  and  from  no  responsibility,  however  fateful. 

Isham  G.  Harris  was  a  Representative  from  the  State  of  Tennessee, 
in  the  Thirty-first  Congress,  in  December,  1849.  He  was  tnen  m  tne 
fresh  vigor  of  young  manhood.  He  impressed  his  associates  with  that 
ripeness  of  judgment,  energy  of  action,  and  capacity  for  labor  which 
mark  his  subsequent  career.  The  successors  of  prominent  and  efficient 
members  in  the  National  Legislature  have  a  trying  ordeal.  They  arrest 
the  critical  attention  of  the  friends  and  admirers  of  their  predecessors. 
Contrasts  and  comparisons  are  made.  Much  more  is  expected  of  them  than 
of  the  general  body  of  Representatives.  Isham  G.  Harris  came  from  that 
district  known  as  "  Cave  Johnson's  old  district."  Mr.  Cave  Johnson  was 
then  a  member  of  President  Folk's  Cabinet.  He  had  obtained,  in  a  long 
service  as  a  member  of  Congress,  a  character  second  to  none  for  honesty  and 
ability.  Young  Harris  stood  the  crucial  test  of  comparison.  He  was  as 
signed  high  rank.  Having  secured  the  esteem  of  his  constituents,  he  was  by 
them  again  returned  to  Congress.  Determining  to  change  his  residence, 
although  urged  by  his  constituency  and  nominated  by  his  party,  he  declined 
to  be  returned  to  the  Thirty-third  Congress.  In  1853,  he  removed  to  the  city 
of  Memphis.  It  was  then,  as  now,  one  of  the  leading  centres  of  commerce 
on  the  Mississippi  River.  He  removed  there  with  a  view  of  practicing  law. 
At  the  bar  of  that  city  he  took  rank  with  its  leading  advocates.  The  char 
acter  he  had  made  in  politics  as  a  popular  speaker  and  sound  reasoner,  made 
him  the  Presidential  Elector  for  the  state  at  large  in  1856. 

No  state  in  the  Union  ranks  higher  than  Tennessee  for  the  number  and 
high  character  of  its  popular  speakers.  It  was  from  the  "college"  of  the 
"stump"  that  Polk,  Grundy,  Bell,  Gentry,  Jones,  Henry,  Heiskell,  and 
Johnson  sprang.  These  were  men  of  elevated  rank  among  the  statesmen  of 
the  Union.  In  the  canvass  of  the  state,  made  by  Isham  G.  Harris  in  1856, 
with  ex-Governor  Neil  S.  Brown  as  his  opponent,  he  made  an  indelible 
impression  on  the  people  of  that  commonwealth.  So  successful  was  he 
as  a  party  leader  and  speaker,  that  he  made  Tennessee,  whose  political 
party  status  had,  since  1836,  been  more  or  less  doubtful,  a  fixed  Demo 
cratic  state.  He  was  elected  governor  in  1859,  ^n<^  again  in  1861.  Here 
was  his  field  !  He  filled  that  office  from  October,  1857,  to  tne  close  of  the 
Civil  War.  He  displayed  executive  ability  of  the  very  highest  order.  It  was 
during  his  second  term  that  the  great  Civil  War  began.  In  his  executive 
communications  to  the  legislature  are  to  be  found  the  ablest  and  most  suc 
cinct,  as  well  as  the  most  intelligent  presentation  and  justification  of  the  rea 
sons  for  the  action  of  the  seceding  states.  Whatever  may  be  thought  as  to  this, 

19 


298  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

—  whether  his  reasoning  was  or  was  not  sound,  —  history  must  say  that 
in  the  military  labor  demanded  of  him  as  governor  of  a  seceding  state  lying 
on  the  border  line,  he  showed  such  superior  energy  as  to  entitle  him  to  the 
first  position  among  the  giants  of  that  day  of  giants,  North  and  South.  Pe 
culiar  difficulties  lay  in  his  way.  Tennessee  was  without  arms  or  military 
organization  at  the  time  of  her  separation  from  the  Federal  Union.  There 
was  a  large  element  of  disaffection  to  his  policy.  It  existed  in  the  eastern 
portion  of  the  state.  The  northern  border  of  Tennessee  —  of  about  four 
hundred  and  fifty  miles  —  from  its  exposed  condition  invited  approach  from 
points  where  the  resources  of  the  Federal  Government  were  greatest,  as  did 
also  the  western  border  on  the  Mississippi  River.  The  promptness,  zeal, 
and  skill  which  he  manifested  in  preparation  to  meet  this  state  of  things 
showed  that  he  merited  the  character  claimed  for  him.  Indeed,  this  was 
even  more  strikingly  manifested  in  subsequent  acts  of  that  eventful  epoch. 

When  the  curtain  went  down  on  that  drama,  Governor  Harris,  for  the 
most  patriotic  of  reasons  —  that  of  promoting  the  internal  peace  of  his  native 
state  —  left  the  United  States.  He  went  first  to  Mexico,  and  thence  to  Eng 
land.  In  1867  he  returned.  He  at  once  resumed  the  practice  of  law  at 
Memphis.  To  his  profession  and  the  reparation  of  his  private  fortunes,  he 
gave  exclusive  attention,  and  with  marked  success.  However,  as  a  part  of 
the  current  history  of  the  state,  it  may  be  said  that  until  the  political  revo 
lution  of  the  state  in  1870,  under  the  lead  of  Governor  Senter,  the  great 
body  of  the  white  citizens  of  the  state  were  disfranchised  for  their  sympathy 
or  identification  with  the  Confederate  States.  Besides,  under  the  amend 
ments  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  Governor  Harris  was  under  political  disa 
bilities.  At  the  earliest  opportunity  after  the  political  emancipation  of  the 
white  citizens,  the  high  esteem  in  which  he  was  held  was  made  manifest 
in  his  election  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  This  occurred  in 
January,  1877.  In  this  body  he  immediately  took  high  position  by  his 
great  force  of  character.  He  served  on  various  committees  of  prominence. 
He  was  placed  upon  the  Committee  on  Rules.  With  that  peculiar  knack 
or  tact  which  belongs  to  few  men  whom  the  author  has  met  in  Washington, 
he  at  once  took  rank  as  a  parliamentarian.  He  presides,  temporarily,  more 
frequently  than  any  other  Senator.  He  is  now  a  member  of  the  Commit 
tee  on  Finance,  which  is  the  leading  committee  of  the  Senate. 

Wherever  assigned  to  duty,  he  has  shown  great  attention  and  industry ; 
but  his  capital  quality  is  that  of  a  positive  and  affirmative  man.  He  is  de 
voted  to  principle.  He  is  candid,  honest,  and  fearless  in  the  advocacy  of  his 
opinions.  He  is  a  Democrat  of  the  faith  of  the  early  expounders  of  the  Con 
stitution.  He  is  a  fit  representative  of  the  Democracy  of  the  state  which 
gave  us  Jackson,  Grundy,  and  Polk.  Senator  Harris  was  re-elected  to  the 
Senate  in  1883.  His  official  term  will  close  in  1889.  Until  then,  the  ad 
herents  of  the  doctrine  of  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution  may  be  as- 


GOVERNOR  JOHN  LETCHER,  OF  VIRGINIA.  299 

sured  that  they  will  have  a  Senator  who  has  the  ability  and  courage  to  sus 
tain  his  convictions  ;  and  the  great  mass  of  the  people  may  know  that  they 
have  a  friend,  watchful  and  attentive  to  their  rights  and  interests. 

Thus,  from  the  crosses  of  war  come  the  heroes  who  wear  the  civic 
crown.  Out  of  the  sacrifices,  and  from  the  very  ashes  and  agonies  of  our 
sad  conflict,  arises  this  tribune  of  the  people,  who  in  the  future  will,  in 
addition  to  his  adhesion  to  Federal  unity,  combine  the  deathless  thought  of 
local  independence  and  state  pride,  without  which  that  unity  is  a  rope  of 
sand.  "Wine  issues  from  the  trodden  grape.  Iron  is  blistered  into  steel.' 

The  governor  of  Virginia  during  the  war  was  John  Letcher,  of  Lexing 
ton.  He  has  already  been  referred  to  as  a  member  of  the  Thirty-fifth  and 
Thirty-sixth  Congresses.  The  writer  is  indebted  to  him  for  many  a  prudent 
suggestion  in  the  first  years  of  his  legislative  service.  Since  the  war  ended 
he  has  corresponded  with  him.  It  is  a  chief  delectation  of  a  service  that 
sometimes  has  its  exactions  almost  beyond  human  patience,  that  such  men 
have  given  confidence  and  trust  amid  all  the  darkening  clouds  of  trial  and 
war.  No  man,  perhaps,  ever  represented  a  district  in  Congress  with  more 
fidelity  than  John  Letcher  represented  the  Lexington  district.  He  was  born 
on  the  29th  of  March,  1813.  He  spent  his  whole  life  in  Lexington,  Rock- 
bridge  County,  except  when  absent  upon  public  duty.  He  owed  his  manly 
form  and  his  mental  capacity,  his  self-reliance  and  enduring  qualities,  to  the 
mountain  home  in  which  he  was  raised.  He  was  a  poor  boy,  but  rich  in 
inherited  Scotch-Irish  blood.  By  its  vigor  he  was  lifted  to  an  honorable 
niche  in  the  Capitol  of  his  state  and  of  the  country.  He  was  educated  at  an 
old  "  Field  school."  He  received  some  classical  instruction  at  what  is  now 
the  "  Washington  and  Lee  University,"  and  at  the  Macon  College.  He  be 
came  a  member  of  the  bar  at  twenty-three  years  of  age.  At  the  time 
Governor  McDowell  led  the  Democratic  party  of  his  region,  he  came  to  the 
front.  He  entered  into  the  field  of  politics.  He  was  an  editor,  a  member  of 
the  legislature,  and  an  admirable  speaker  upon  the  hustings.  In  1851,  he 
was  elected  a  member  of  Congress,  and  was  frequently  re-elected.  His  sig 
nificant  sobriquet  was  "Honest  John  Letcher."  He  was  one  of  the  "watch 
dogs  "  of  the  treasury.  Along  with  George  W.  Jones  and  others,  he  was 
regarded  as  one  of  an  incorruptible  company  who  allowed  no  dishonesty 
which  they  could  reach  or  suppress.  He  took  a  large  part  in  expelling  from 
their  dishonored  seats  such  men  as  Matteson  and  other  Northern  members, 
for  bribery. 

When  the  writer  first  knew  Governor  Letcher,  the  latter  was  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.  That  committee  then  had  charge 
also  of  appropriations.  In  fact,  Mr.  Letcher  had,  in  that  position,  command 
of  the  treasury  and  its  resources. 

But  Governor  Letcher  will  be  best  remembered  in  Virginia  as  its  chief 


300  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

magistrate  in  the  most  portentous  period  connected  with  the  civil  liberties, 
Federal  relations,  and  social  order  of  the  country.  He  held  the  helm  as 
magistrate  with  a  firm  hand.  He  venerated  the  fathers  of  the  Constitution. 
He  was  a  man  of  conservative  and  cautious  instincts.  He  clung  to  the  idea 
of  the  preservation  of  the  Union  and  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  difficulties, 
until  all  hopes,  as  he  considered,  were  blasted  by  the  proclamation  of  the 
President,  issued  on  the  i5th  of  April,  1861,  to  suppress  certain  combina 
tions.  Then,  as  one  of  his  eulogists  has  said,  without  the  slightest  hesi 
tancy,  with  the  wisdom  of  Nestor  and  the  courage  of  Achilles,  he  led  his 
state  through  all  its  distress  and  peril.  Whatever  Virginia  gained  out  of  the 
chaos  of  the  war,  whatever  Jackson  and  Lee  did  for  the  protection  and 
honor  of  the  state  and  for  their  cause  in  its  varying  fortunes,  is  largely  to  be 
shared  with  their  coadjutor,  the  chief  magistrate  of  Virginia.  At  the  close 
of  his  official  term  as  governor  he  devoted  himself  quietly  to  his  profession. 
He  was  president  of  the  board  of  officers  of  the  Virginia  Military  Institute. 
He  held  no  office  after  the  expiration  of  his  executive  term.  When  he  died, 
full  of  honors  and  years,  on  the  26th  of  January,  1884,  the  state  mourned 
him  as  no  son  of  hers  has  been  mourned  since  the  death  of  the  great  states 
men  and  jurists  of  Virginia  —  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Marshall. 

Governor  Sam  :  Houston  was  also  born  at  Lexington,  Virginia,  the  birth 
place  of  Governor  Letcher.  He  was  born  on  the  2d  of  March,  1793.  His 
father  served  in  the  Revolutionary  War,  and  held  the  post  of  Inspector,. of 
Brigade  till  his  death  in  1807.  After  the  death  of  young  Houston's  father, 
his  mother,  with  her  six  sons  and  three  daughters,  emigrated  to  East  Ten 
nessee,  to  a  place  within  eight  miles  of  the  Cherokee  country.  His  early 
educational  advantages  were  very  limited.  While  at  school  he  desired  to  learn 
Greek  and  Latin,  but  being  refused  by  the  master,  he  left  the  school  and  en 
tered  a  store  as  a  clerk.  For  this  occupation  he  had  little  relish.  He  soon 
relinquished  it.  He  crossed  the  Tennessee  River,  and  lived  with  the  Indians 
for  about  three  years.  The  chief  adopted  him  as  his  son.  At  eighteen  years 
of  age  he  was  six  feet  high  and  an  active  hunter.  After  his  three  years'  expe 
rience  with  the  Indians,  he  returned  to  his  family  and  opened  a  school.  Dur 
ing  the  war  with  Great  Britain,  in  1813,  he  enlisted  as  a  private  and  was 
promoted  to  be  an  ensign.  He  fought  under  Jackson  against  the  Indians  at 
the  battle  of  the  Great  Bend  of  the  Tallapoosa,  in  March,  1814,  where  he  was 
severely  wounded.  After  the  ratification  of  peace  he  was  promoted  to  be 
a  lieutenant.  In  1817,  he  was  appointed  a  subordinate  Indian  agent  to  carry 
out  the  treaty  with  the  Cherokees  which  had  just  been  ratified.  In  the  suc 
ceeding  winter  he  conducted  a  delegation  of  Indians  to  Washington.  He 
resigned  his  commission  in  the  army  in  1818,  settled  in  Nashville,  and  studied 
law.  In  six  months  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar  and  began  practice  in 
Lebanon,  Tennessee.  He  had  a  tendency  toward  a  military  life.  He  was 


GOVERNOR  SAM  :  HOUSTON,  OF  TEXAS.  301 

appointed  adjutant-general  of  the  state,  with  the  rank  of  colonel.  In  1819, 
he  was  elected  district  attorney  of  the  Davidson  District  and  took  up  his 
residence  in  Nashville.  After  serving  two  years  as  major-generalof  militia, 
in  1823  he  was  elected  to  Congress.  He  was  re-elected  for  the  ensuing 
term  almost  unanimously.  He  was  chosen  governor  of  Tennessee  in  1827. 
This  office  he  resigned  in  1829  and  returned  to  his  former  friends,  the  Cher- 
okees.  Several  years  after,  he  went  to  Washington  to  remonstrate  against  the 
frauds  and  outrages  practiced  upon  the  Indians.  The  result  of  his  visit  was 
the  removal  of  five  of  the  government  agents.  He  then  became  involved 
in  personal  and  legal  contests  with  these  agents  and  their  friends.  He  was 
accused  in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  William  Stanbery,  of  Ohio, 
of  attempting  to  obtain  a  fraudulent  contract  for  Indian  rations  from  the 
government.  This  attack  led  to  a  personal  rencontre  between  Houston 
and  Stanbery,  in  which  the  latter  was  severely  beaten.  Houston,  being  the 
aggressor,  was  arrested  and  publicly  censured  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House. 
He  was  also  tried  for  the  assault,  and  fined.  The  sentence  of  the  court  was 
not  enforced,  the  fine  being  afterwards  remitted  by  President  Jackson.  The 
charge  of  fraud  was  subsequently  investigated  by  a  committee  of  which  Mr. 
Stanbery  was  the  chairman.  It  was  not  sustained. 

The  writer,  from  1856  to  1863,  represented  a  part  of  the  district  formerly 
represented  by  Mr.  Stanbery.  He  can  recall,  in  a  nebulous  way,  the  terrific 
political  campaign  in  that  part  of  Ohio,  when  Stanbery  was  a  candidate  after 
the  rencontre  with  Houston.  Caricatures  representing  General  Houston 
caning  the  Ohio  member,  and  the  humiliating  attitude  of  Stanbery  and  the 
ridiculous  legend  of  the  pictures  are  a  part  of  the  reminiscence  of  the  author's 
childhood.  Politics  were  running  with  more  acrimony  then  than  now.  Gen 
eral  Houston  was  a  Jacksonian  champion,  whose  valor  was  eulogized  at  the 
expense  of  Mr.  Stanbery's  pluck.  The  phrase  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  hu 
miliated  member  in  the  caricature  was:  "Don't!  —  Don't!  Oh!  Lordy ! 
Oh  !  Oh  !  Lordy  !  "  This  caricature  defeated  one  of  the  ablest  public  men 
of  Ohio  —  a  man  of  brusque  individuality,  and  of  a  courage  never  until  that 
occasion  questioned. 

About  this  time  revolutionary  movements  were  organizing  in  Texas  against 
the  Mexican  government.  Houston  went  there  at  once.  In  the  constitu 
tional  convention  which  met  in  April,  1833,  he  exercised  a  dominating  in 
fluence.  When  the  war  for  Texan  independence  began,  he  was  elected 
general  of  the  military  district  east  of  the  Trinity.  He  led  his  troops  to  the 
camp  of  General  Austin,  who  was  then  besieging  Bexar.  He  was  soon 
elected  to  the  chief  command  of  the  Texan  army.  After  the  formal  declara 
tion  of  Texan  independence,  he  resigned  his  commission  and  was  immediately 
elected  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  of  the  new  republic.  He  was  a  man 
of  foresight  and  prudence,  combined  with  great  valor.  Had  his  orders  been 
obeyed  and  his  advice  been  taken,  history  would  not  have  recorded  the 


302  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

butchery  of  the  Alamo,  nor  the  perfidious  massacre  of  Goliad.  With  but 
783  men  and  two  six-pounders,  he  met  Santa  Anna  at  San  Jacinto,  with 
his  force  of  1,600  regulars,  flushed  with  victory.  After  a  fierce  battle  with 
the  Mexicans  he  utterly  routed  them.  In  that  battle  630  of  the  Mexicans 
were  killed,  and  only  eight  Texans.  This  battle  settled  the  independence  of 
Texas.  Santa  Anna  was  captured,  being  disguised  as  a  common  soldier. 
During  his  captivity  he  made  a  treaty  which  secured  Texan  independence. 
General  Houston  soon  sailed  for  New  Orleans,  where  he  arrived  in  almost 
a  dying  condition,  having  been  severely  wounded  in  the  fight  at  San  Jacinto. 
In  the  following  September  he  was  elected  president  of  Texas. 

General  Houston  was  a  man  of  great  ambition.  He  was  a  standing  can 
didate  for  the  Presidency.  He  had  a  form  and  mien  quite  as  outrt  as  that 
of  any  man  who  ever  entered  Congress  or  served  the  people.  He  came 
to  Washington  wearing  a  Mexican  blanket,  or  poncho.  He  used  to  sit  all 
day  in  his  senatorial  seat  whittling  cedar  sticks,  until  the  shavings  were 
piled  around  him.  He  had  an  infinite  treasury  of  humor,  and  used  it  in  dis 
cussions  with  rare  effect.  His  picture  of  General  Cass's  Anglophobia,  which 
he  illustrated  by  a  bloodless  fight  he  once  saw  between  two  big  turtles,  was 
one  of  the  most  amusing  pieces  of  drollery  ever  laughed  at  in  or  out  of  Con 
gress.  Houston  was  a  man  of  great  nobility  of  heart,  as  well  as  of  indomita 
ble  courage.  He  appointed  his  political  rivals  to  important  offices.  It 
was  he  who  opened  negotiations  with  the  United  States  Government  for  the 
annexation  of  Texas  to  the  Union.  He  served  two  terms  as  president  of 
Texas,  paid  off  a  large  amount  of  her  national  debt,  kept  the  expenditures 
within  the  revenues,  made  treaties  with  hostile  Indian  tribes,  restored  peace 
and  trade  with  Mexico,  and  finally  consummated  the  annexation  to  the 
United  States,  although  the  formal  annexation  did  not  take  place  till  after 
the  expiration  of  his  constitutional  term  of  office.  With  Thomas  J.  Rusk, 
in  1845,  he  entered  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  He  was  re-elected  in 
1853.  He  remained  in  the  Senate  till  March  4,  1859.  He  was  always  a 
zealous  advocate  of  justice  and  humanity  to  the  Indians.  He,  unfortunately, 
gave  his  adhesion  to  the  Know  Nothing,  or  American  party.  He  opposed 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  in  a  speech  in  1854 ;  and  in  1858,  he  voted, 
with  Douglas,  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution  of  Kansas.  In  August, 
1859,  ne  was  agam  elected  governor  of  Texas.  He  was  an  earnest  and  bit 
ter  opponent  of  secession.  He  long  resisted  the  disunion  clamor  for  an  extra 
session  of  the  Texas  legislature,  and  finally  resigned  his  office  in  preference 
to  taking  the  oath  required  by  the  secession  convention.  He  died  at  Hun- 
tersville,  Texas,  July  25,  1863,  but  before  his  death  he  gave  his  reluctant 
assent  to  the  action  by  which  Texas  followed  the  other  Gulf  states  out  of  the 
Union. 

Georgia  has  a  wonderful  diversity  of  resources.     All  she  lacks  to  make 


GOVERNOR  JOSEPH  E.  BROWN,  OF  GEORGIA.  303 

her  the  rival  of  the  State  of  New- York  is  more  capital  and  people.  She  is 
well  named  an  empire  state.  What  of  development  she  has  had  since  the 
war,  has  been  largely  owing  to  the  sagacity  of  her  statesmen.  They  were 
early  out  of  the  unthrifty  trenches  of  Federal  and  Confederate  conflict.  They 
were  among  the  first  of  Southern  statesmen  to  discern  the  dawn  of  a  better 
time.  They  sought  to  be  rid,  at  once,  of  the  adventurous  insectivora  who 
were  fattening  upon  the  body  of  their  state  and  impeding  her  growth,  and 
to  give  incentive  and  advancement  to  her  industry  and  trade.  In  the  language 
of  her  war  governor,  Joseph  E.  Brown,  the  subject  of  this  sketch  :  "  There 
she  stands,  the  grand  old  state,  —  arable,  watered,  timbered,  peopled  in 
every  district,  —  with  immense  capabilities  in  the  production  of  nearly  all 
that  man  needs  of  food,  raiment,  medicine  ;  laden  with  vines  and  fruits,  and 
with  her  graceful  drapery  trimmed  with  every  variety  of  flowers,  from  the 
gorgeous  magnolia  to  the  bridal-wreath  spirea."  It  is  no  idle  boast  to  say, 
that  in  a  material  view  she  is  as  peerless  in  her  climate  as  she  is  imperial  in 
her  area  and  production.  Her  precious  stones,  and  still  more  precious  metals, 
deck  her  bridal  array.  In  1880,  her  population  was  i  ,542,180.  All  but  about 
ten  thousand  were  natives  of  this  country.  Her  white  population  exceeds 
the  colored  by  about  one  hundred  thousand.  She  has  37,120,000  acres  of 
land.  While  planting  is,  and  has  been,  her  leading  industry,  she  is  more 
energetic  than  some  of  the  other  cotton  states.  She  follows  the  pod  of  her 
fields  to  her  own  mills,  and  spins  it  for  the  clothing  of  the  South.  In  1880, 
she  had  six  and  a  half  millions  invested  in  cotton  mills,  with  an  equal  value 
in  the  products  of  that  fabric.  Since  the  census  has  been  taken,  her  manu 
factures  have  largely  increased.  When  one  of  the  colonies,  she  was  inspired 
with  the  spirit  of  liberty,  tempered  by  an  earnest  religious  element.  Both 
were  the  result  of  the  bent  given  in  the  childhood  of  her  history.  Parties  in 
her  past  revolutionary  struggles  were  nearly  equally  divided  ;  so  that  excesses 
became  the  exception,  and  moderation  the  rule,  of  her  governance.  The 
state  which  boasts  among  her  sons  the  names  of  Troup,  Crawford,  Forsythe, 
Cobb,  Lumpkin,  Baldwin,  Johnson,  Colquitt,  Warner,  Streeter,  Berrien, 
Hill,  Lamar,  Toombs,  and  Stephens, — preachers,  lawyers,  statesmen, 
humorists,  and  poets, — was  not  lacking  in  the  ability  to  direct  and  control 
even  the  wildest  elements  of  revolution.  Her  sons  in  other  states,  the  best 
example  of  whom  is  Lucius  Q.  C.  Lamar,  of  Mississippi,  now  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  have  shown  in  the  very  torrent  and  tempest  of  a  passionate  love 
for  their  sunny  section,  an  effective  composure  worth  whole  satrapies,  in  the 
rule  of  an  ardent  and  impetuous  people.  Foremost  among  the  men  of  this 
rarely-gifted  state  was,  and  is,  Joseph  Emerson  Brown.  He  is  the  present 
Senator  from  Georgia.  He  is  not  gifted,  as  was  Benjamin  H.  Hill,  and  as 
is  Lamar,  with  the  splendors  and  fervors  of  eloquence ;  but  as  a  practical 
man,  his  business  tact,  equipoise,  energy,  and  knowledge  of  men  became  as 
indispensable  to  his  state  in  i86o-'6i,  as  they  are  now  effective  in  sustaining 
her  interests  and  honor. 


304  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Senator  Brown  was  born  in  South  Carolina,  April  15,  1821.  The  mountain 
district  of  Cherokee  in  Georgia  gave  hospitality  to  the  family  and  to  the 
boy.  He  was  a  senator  in  the  legislature  in  1849.  He  was  one  of  that 
class  of  Unionists,  who  in  1850  agreed  upon  the  compromises  of  that  year. 
He  then  repudiated  resistance  to  the  Federal  Government.  He  has  been 
always  a  Baptist  and  a  Democrat.  His  hair  and  beard  have  grown  long 
and  silvery  in  vindicating  his  ideal  of  church  and  state. 

He,  also,  was  of  Scotch-Irish  descent ;  and  therefore  his  ancestors  were 
Whigs  and  rebels  in  the  Revolution.  He  was  a  teacher.  "  He  read  law  of 
nights  and  Saturdays,  without  an  instructor."  He  paid  off  the  debt  for  his 
education,  by  his  own  industry.  He  was  also  thus  enabled  to  go  to  the  Yale 
Law  School,  from  which  he  graduated  in  1846.  He  practiced  law  for  eleven 
years.  He  became  chief  justice  of  his  state  after  the  war.  He  ascended  by 
the  ladder  which  he  made  and  reared  himself.  He  thus  became  equipped 
for  the  work  of  directing  his  state,  as  its  chief  magistrate,  in  its  great 
ordeal  from  1860  to  1866.  He  had  early  given  his  searching  attention 
to  its  material  interests.  The  railroads  and  institutions  of  his  state  had 
his  special  efforts.  He  is  now  president  of  its  chief  railroad.  He  was  first 
inaugurated  as  governor  in  1857.  He  remained  at  this  chief  post  of  honor 
and  usefulness  until  the  Confederacy  collapsed.  He  was  four  times  elected 
governor  by  the  people,  and  by  large  and  increased  majorities.  His  first 
belligerent  act  as  governor  was  his  proclamation  of  April  26,  1861,  forbid 
ding  the  payment  of  debts  to  Northern  creditors.  In  1863,  when  the  peace 
sentiment  began  to  be  heard  in  murmurs,  he  rather  surmised  that  his  state 
was  not  ready  for  peace.  Although  not  unfriendly  to  the  theory  and  objects 
of  secession,  he  distrusted  the  administration  of  the  Confederate  President. 
Still  he  was  re-elected,  and  by  the  votes  of  the  soldiers  in  the  field.  He  was 
not  backward  in  the  exercise  of  the  veto.  Being  a  business  man,  he  took  an 
unusual  interest  in  the  banking  institutions  of  the  state  and  their  proper 
restraint.  As  a  friend  of  education,  he  bent  his  energies  in  favor  of  state 
economy,  with  the  view  to  be  as  prodigal  as  possible  in  forwarding  plans  for 
educating  the  rising  youth  of  Georgia. 

The  telegraph  clicked  the  news  of  the  Presidential  election,  on  the  7th 
of  November,  1860.  A  sectional  candidate  was  elected.  The  cotton  states 
were  allowed  but  little  time  for  a  calm  determination  of  their  course.  They 
determined  to  resist  what  was  termed  Federal  encroachment.  The  Georgia 
ordinance  of  secession  was  adopted  as  early  as  the  2Oth  of  December, 
1860.  The  vote  test  was  160  to  130.  Fort  Pulaski  was  at  once  occupied  by 
order  of  the  governor.  His  headquarters  were  fixed  at  Savannah.  Col. 
Alexander  R.  Lawton,  who  opposed  Governor  Brown  for  Senator,  and  who  is 
just  named  as  minister  to  Russia,  and  has  gallantly  resigned  the  post,  was 
ordered  to  occupy  this  stronghold  entrance  into  the  state  with  the  First  Regi 
ment  of  Georgia  volunteers.  This  was  done.  In  one  line  of  conduct, 


STATE  SOVEREIGNTY  IN  THE  CONFEDERACY.        305 

however,  Governor  Brown  was  greatly  distinguished  from  other  Confederate 
governors.  We  may  except,  perhaps,  Governor  Vance,  of  North  Carolina. 
It  refers  to  state  sovereignty.  He  carries  out,  even  in  defiance  of  Jefferson 
Davis  and  the  Richmond  government,  his  ideas  on  this  topic.  It  is  to 
Governor  Brown  that  Governor  Vance  sends  his  significant  letter  of  Sept. 
23, 1864.  It  asks  concerted  action  by  the  legislatures  of  the  various  Southern 
States.  That  letter  suggests  that  the  "principle  of  state  sovereignty  ren 
dered  it  improper  to  allow  the  Confederate  Government  to  conscript  the  citi 
zens  of  Georgia."  It  is  his  boast,  that  he  never  opposes  the  execution  of  the 
Confederate  laws  ;  but  he  certainly  remonstrates  with  a  vigor  unprecedented 
for  a  subordinate,  and  to  the  very  verge  of  opposition,  to  the  acts  of  the  Con 
federate  Government.  His  correspondence  in  1864,  with  James  A.  Seddon, 
Confederate  Secretary  of  War,  reveals  this  discussion  in  its  personality, 
amplitude,  and  ability.  When  Sherman  began  to  move  toward  Atlanta, 
Governor  Brown  called  out  the  state  militia.  Old  men  and  boys,  civilians 
and  disabled  soldiers,  non-combatants,  all  were  summoned  to  arms.  They 
responded  ten  thousand  strong.  President  Davis  forthwith  made  a  requisition 
for  these  troops,  under  date  of  Aug.  30,  1864.  On  the  I2th  of  September, 
Governor  Brown  gives  reasons  for  refusing  this  requisition.  He,  in  fact, 
charges  the  Confederate  President  with  designs  of  grasping  ambition,  and  to 
place  in  power  his  own  favorites.  These  troops  are  state  militia.  They 
are  raised  to  repel  state  invasion.  "Georgia,"  the  governor  says,  "has 
already  on  Virginia  soil,  fifty  regiments  of  her  brave  sons."  He  not  only 
refuses  to  send  the  ten  thousand  militia  men,  but  he  demands  that  the  Presi 
dent  permit  all  the  sons  of  Georgia  to  return  to  their  own  state,  to  rally 
around  her  glorious  flag  within  her  own  limits. 

To  this  letter  Mr.  Seddon  replies.  Its  tenor  and  spirit  cause  painful 
surprise.  It  requires  forbearance,  and  he  forbears  to  answer  too  sharply. 
But  the  answer  is  not  soft.  It  does  not  turn  away  the  gubernatorial  wrath. 
It  closes  with  this  sting  of  reproach  :  "  Our  enemies  appear  to  have  conceived 
that  you  are  prepared  to  entertain  overtures  of  separate  accommodation, 
and  that  your  state  could  be  seduced  or  betrayed  to  treachery  and  desertion." 

A  long,  argumentative  rejoinder  was  made  to  this  letter.  The  reply  to  the 
suggestion  of  Secretary  Seddon  that  Governor  Brown's  action  sprung  from 
the  spirit  of  opposition  to  the  Confederate  Government,  was  trenchant, 
passionate,  and  biting.  "  Some  men,"  said  he,  "  are  unable  to  distinguish 
between  opposition  to  a  government  and  unwillingness  blindly  to  indorse  all 
the  errors  of  an  Administration ;  or  to  discriminate  between  loyalty  to  a 
cause  and  loyalty  to  their  master.  My  loyalty  is  only  due  to  my  country ; 
you  can  bestow  yours  where  your  interest  or  inclinations  may  prompt." 
The  italics  upon  the  word  interest  are  in  Governor  Brown's  own  letter  and 
volume.  This  correspondence  displays  the  same  vein  of  independence  in 
local  sovereignty  that  appears  in  the  spicy  correspondence  between  Jefferson 


306  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Davis  and  Governor  Brown,  in  1862,  upon  the  conscription.  These  jealousies 
had  much  to  do  with  weakening  the  Confederacy,  even  as  early  as  1862. 

When  the  disasters  of  1864  fell  upon  the  South,  Governor  Vance,  of  North 
Carolina,  proposed  a  meeting  of  governors  at  Augusta  in  October,  to  confer 
as  to  some  general  plan  of  action  for  the  relief  of  the  country.  This  and  other 
matters  are  referred  to  in  the  following  chapter.  They  will  show  that  there 
was  an  element  of  discontent  in  the  Confederacy.  Many  prominent  people 
looked  eagerly  for  a  cessation  of  the  war,  and  for  rehabilitation  in  the  old 
Union. 

It  is  not  a  part  of  the  plan  of  this  book  to  show  in  detail  the  local  admin 
istration  of  the  states,  except  as  it  is  connected  with  Federal  affairs.  Hence, 
much  to  the  honor  of  this  energetic  man  and  governor  is  omitted.  When 
the  war  was  over,  and  others  were  backward  in  sustaining  the  Reconstruction 
acts,  his  rare  business  foresight  taught  him,  despite  temporary  unpopularity, 
to  speak  for  the  wisdom  of  prompt  acquiescence.  How  he  helped  to  carry 
out  these  measures,  although  the  Democratic  party  opposed  them,  will  appear 
in  the  proper  place.  His  efforts  were  herculean.  He  even  voted  for  General 
Grant  in  1868,  on  the  basis  of  his  hopes  and  efforts  for  reconstruction.  Since 
1872,  he  has  been  happy  in  the  household  of  Democratic  faith.  As  an  evi 
dence  of  his  restored  popularity,  he  has  been  re-elected  to  the  Senate  for  his 
second  term,  which  began  with  the  inauguration  of  President  Cleveland. 

Truly,  if  there  was  ability  anywhere  to  maintain  the  Confederacy,  it  was 
in  the  hands  and  heads  of  such  business  executives  as  Joseph  E.  Brown. 
But  it  was  fated  otherwise.  Senator  Brown  has  amassed  a  vast  fortune, 
but  he  does  not  forget  the  ladder  by  which  he  ascended,  round  by  round, 
to  opulence  and  prominence.  He  is  munificent  in  all  the  varied  ways 
known  to  benevolence  and  piety.  To  church  and  college,  to  asylum  and 
individual,  his  charity  goes  out  in  varied  forms  of  generosity  to  bless  those 
who  are  struggling,  as  he  himself  had  struggled.  He  is  endowed  with 
those  larger  sympathies  which  embrace  his  beloved  state  in  his  benefac 
tions,  and  encompass  a  restored  Union  with  patriotism  and  magnanimity. 
In  his  policy  as  a  Senator,  as  in  his  efforts  after  the  war,  he  is  still  as  self- 
reliant  as  in  the  dire  extremities  out  of  which  he  helped  to  rescue  his  state. 

Zebulon  B.  Vance  wTas  the  governor  of  North  Carolina  during  its  most 
critical  period.  He  was  born  on  the  I3th  of  May,  1830,  in  the  shadow  of 
Mount  Mitchell.  That  region  was  then  difficult  of  access.  It  was  unpene- 
trated,  except  by  a  few  mountain  roads.  The  schools  were  kept  in  log- 
houses  in  the  valleys.  The  basis  of  young  Vance's  education  was  a  well- 
selected  library  left  to  his  father's  family  by  his  uncle,  Robert  B.  Vance,  of 
the  same  name  as  a  subsequent  congressman. —  In  i824~'25  and  '26,  the  elder 
Robert  represented  that  mountain  district,  then  known  as  Buncombe,  from 
one  of  its  counties.  It  was  represented  in  iS58-'59-'6o  and  '61  by  the  other 
Robert  B.  Vance,  a  brother  of  the  governor. —  The  library  contained  about 


GOVERNOR  ZEBULON  B.  VANCE,  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA.         307 

five  hundred  volumes  of  the  cream  of  literature :  Hume,  Gibbon,  Smollet, 
Rollins ;  Heroditus,  Thucydides,  Livy,  Tacitus,  and  Cicero ;  Fielding, 
Scott,  Swift,  Addison,  Pope,  Byron,  Shakespeare,  Milton,  Campbell,  and 
Moore,  among  the  poets  and  novelists  ;  Adam  Smith's  Wealth  of  Nations, 
among  the  works  of  political  economists ;  Marshall's  Washington,  Otis' 
Batta,  and  Lee's  Memoirs,  among  the  American  writings.  The  best  books 
of  the  day  were  on  the  shelves.  At  the  age  of  twelve,  young  Vance  had 
already  skimmed  over  most  of  them.  It  thus  happened  that  the  best  classic 
literature  made  the  first  impression  on  his  mind.  He  studied  law  at  Chapel 
Hill,  and  obtained  a  license  to  practice  in  the  county  courts  in  January,  1852. 
He  was  admitted  to  the  superior  court  in  August,  1853.  He  married  the 
day  after  he  received  his  superior  court  license.  On  arriving  home  from 
college  in  1852,  with  the  county  court  license,  he  was  immediately  elected 
county  solicitor  by  the  bench  of  magistrates  —  the  first  office  he  ever  held. 
He  did  not  practice  long  before  his  natural  inclination  for  politics  prevailed. 
He  was  elected  to  the  legislature,  the  lower  branch  of  which  was  then  called 
the  House  of  Commons.  With  youthful  confidence  he  thought  he  knew  all 
about  political  economy.  He  says  now  that  he  would  give  a  thousand  dol 
lars  for  a  verbatim  report  of  one  of  his  first  speeches  on  the  tariff,  and  five 
hundred  more  for  a  photograph  that  would  represent  the  young  orator  stand 
ing  on  a  log,  and  three  or  four  hundred  hardy  mountaineers  listening  to 
his  exposition  of  the  laws  of  economy  —  wondering  where  the  boy  got  it  all. 
That  legislative  tour  made  his  fortune.  He  came  to  Congress  in  1858.  The 
writer  then  served  with  him  on  the  Committee  of  Revolutionary  Claims. 
The  war  came  on. 

Mr.  Vance  was  strongly  opposed  to  the  secession  movement.  He  with 
stood  it  with  all  his  energy,  until  his  state  took  action,  and  Mr.  Lincoln 
called  upon  her  to  furnish  her  quota  of  troops  to  suppress  the  rebellion. 
Deeming  his  allegiance  due  primarily  to  his  state,  like  most  Southern  men, 
he  immediately  volunteered,  raised  a  company,  and  departed  for  the  seat  of 
war.  In  four  months  he  was  made  a  colonel.  He  commanded  the  Twenty- 
sixth  Regiment  of  North  Carolina  troops  at  the  battle  of  Newbern,  and  in 
the  "seven  days"  fighting  in  front  of  Richmond,  in  1862.  While  in  the 
field,  without  a  nomination  or  even  candidacy,  he  was  elected  governor  of 
the  state  by  a  very  great  majority.  He  assumed  the  duties  of  the  office  on 
Sept.  8,  1862,  at  the  age  of  thirty-two,  being  the  youngest  man  ever  elected 
to  that  position,  as  he  was  also  the  youngest  member  of  Congress  when 
he  entered  that  body.  He  was  again  elected  governor,  by  a  still  larger 
majority,  in  1864,  and  continued  to  serve  until  displaced  by  the  Federal 
authorities  in  1865. 

His  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  state  at  so  critical  and  turbulent  a 
period  was  marked  by  a  large  measure  of  efficiency  and  success.  He  aided 
in  the  recruiting  of  the  Confederate  armies  by  a  rigid  enforcement  of  the 
conscript  laws,  as  well  as  by  urging  volunteering.  He  stimulated  in  every 


308  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

possible  way  the  production  of  home  supplies,  and  instituted  a  system  of 
blockade  running  by  fast  steamers,  purchased  on  the  Clyde,  by  which  the 
home  supplies  were  so  supplemented  that  the  North  Carolina  soldiers  be 
came  well  known  as  the  best  equipped  and  best  provided  for  in  the  Con 
federate  service,  leaving  a  considerable  surplus  to  be  turned  over  to  the 
army  at  large.  Supplies  of  articles  of  indispensable  necessity  were  also 
imported  by  him  for  the  people,  and  much  was  done  by  the  energy  and 
enthusiasm  which  he  inspired  among  all  classes  to  support  the  war  spirit. 
In  short,  though  going  into  the  war  reluctantly,  no  man  in  the  South  stood 
to  it  more  firmly  to  the  bitter  end,  or  rendered  more  efficient  aid  for  its 
prosecution.  So  thoroughly  had  he  organized  the  development  of  the 
resources  of  his  state,  that  in  a  recent  address  at  the  city  of  Baltimore  he 
boasted  that  North  Carolina's  part  of  the  men  and  means  for  the  support  of 
the  war  could  have  been  maintained  for  two  years  longer. 

From  the  first  movement  of  reconstruction  to  its  closing  scene,  Governor 
Vance  was  its  bitter  opponent,  and  was  recognized  as  one  of  the  foremost 
leaders  in  combating  its  now  universally  admitted  pernicious  effects  upon 
Southern  society.  In  every  canvass  he  was  upon  the  stump.  In  1868  he 
was  nominated  for  governor,  but  because  he  was  under  the  disabilities  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  he  declined  to  run.  In  1870  he  was  elected  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  over  his  present  colleague,  Matt  W.  Ransom,  and  A. 
S.  Merrimon,  the  late  Senator.  He  was  not  admitted  to  his  seat,  by  reason  of 
his  disabilities.  In  1876,  he  was  again  nominated  for  governor  by  every  vote, 
except  four,  of  a  thousand  delegates  in  convention  assembled.  He  carried 
the  state,  which,  since  reconstruction,  had  been  Republican,  by  more  than 
thirteen  thousand  majority,  against  the  ablest  Republican  in  the  South.  In 
January,  1879,  he  was  again  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate,  of  which 
body  he  is  now  a  member,  by  recent  election,  for  the  third  time.  His  best 
known  characteristics  in  that  body  are  hostility  to  high  protective  tariffs,  and 
all  forms  of  capitalistic  monopoly.  He  is  strong  in  integrity,  wondrous  in 
vivacity,  and  a  leader  of  high  rank  in  American  politics. 

It  is  stated  that  the  "  stars  and  bars  "  failed  as  a  national  ensign.  Its  sim 
ilarity  to  the  "  stars  and  stripes  "  made  it  useless.  In  some  of  the  battles  the 
colors  of  the  two  armies  could  not  be  distinguished  from  each  other.  It 
seemed,  says  General  Beauregard,  referring  to  this  fact,  that  many  of  both 
sides  believed  that  each  side  was  using,  as  a  stratagem,  the  flags  of  their 
opponents.  A  battle-flag  was  substituted  in  the  Southern  armies.  This  is  an 
analogue.  It  teaches  how  near  the  respective  armies  and  people  were  to 
each  other,  even  when  seemingly  so  far  apart.  The  same  doctrines,  when 
carried  to  extremes,  North  or  South,  brought  destruction  ;  but  after  all,  when 
rightly  viewed,  their  differences  seemed  so  slight  that  the  stars  and  bars  and 
the  stars  and  stripes  represent,  at  least  now,  a  constellated  ensign,  with  a 
state  for  every  star,  and  a  star  for  every  state. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


PROPOSITIONS  FOR  PEACE,  AND  THE  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING 

SLAVERY. 

THE  CONFEDERACY  AT  THE  END  OF  1864  — GLOOM  AT  RICHMOND  — THE  CALL  FOR 
THREE  HUNDRED  THOUSAND  MEN  BY  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  — THE  ATTEMPTS 
OF  MR.  STUART,  OF  ILLINOIS.  AND  THE  AUTHOR  TO  MAKE  PEACE  —THE  ANTI- 
SLAVERY  ZEALOTS  DISFAVOR  ALL  PEACE  PROPOSITIONS  —  LINCOLN  AND 
SEWARD  MAKE  OVERTURES  OF  PEACE  —  ATTEMPT  TO  CARRY  THE  THIR 
TEENTH  AMENDMENT  BY  TWO-THIRDS  VOTE— THE  CONFEDERATE  DILEMMA 

—  COLONIAL  VASSALAGE,  OR  SUBJUGATION  —  SHALL  THE   SOUTH  GO  TO  ENG 
LAND  AND  FRANCE?- WANING  POPULARITY  OF  JEFFERSON  DAVIS-EVENTS 
WHICH  LED  TO  THE  COLLAPSE  OF  THE  CONFEDERACY  — SHERMAN'S  MARCH 
TO   THE    SEA  — THE    TAKING    OF    SAVANNAH    AND    FORT    FISHER  —  PEACE 
PROPOSITIONS  NORTH  AND   SOUTH  DURING  THE  WAR  —  RESOLUTIONS   AND 
SENTIMENTS    AGAINST   PEACE  -  THE    GROWTH   OF  THE   PEACE   SENTIMENT 
FROM   1861    TO    1865  —  PEACE    BY  COMMISSIONERS,  AND   BY  DELEGATES  TO  A 
NATIONAL  CONVENTION— THE  NIAGARA  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  SAN 
DERS  AND  GREELEY  — ITS  FAILURE  — LINCOLN'S  AUTHORITY  FOR  THE  AT 
TEMPT—VISITS  OF  FRANCIS  P.  BLAIR,  SR.,  TO  RICHMOND  —THE  RESULT  —  THE 
MONROE  DOCTRINE,  AND  CONFEDERATE  EMIGRATION  TO  MEXICO  —  THE  DE 
BATE  ON  THE  AMENDMENT  ABOLISHING  SLAVERY  — THE  POWER  TO  AMEND 
CONTESTED  —  THE  AUTHOR'S  SPEECH  IN  FAVOR  OF  THE  RIGHT  TO  ABOLISH, 
IN  REPLY  TO  PENDLETON  —  THE  PASSAGE  OF  THE  AMENDMENT  -BRIBERY 
ALLEGED  —  ITS    RATIFICATION  —  MR.   SEWARD'S    COMMENDATION    OF   THE 
DEMOCRATS  WHO  FAVORED  THE  AMENDMENT  —  HAMPTON  ROADS  CONFER 
ENCE-LINCOLN  AND  SEWARD  THERE  —  RESULTLESSNESS  OF  THE  MEETING 

—  DEBATES    AND    RESOLUTIONS  ABOUT  IT  —  WHAT  IT  ATTEMPTED  —  CONCLU 
SION  OF  THE  WAR. 

THE  geographical  limits  of  the  Confederate  power  at  the  end  of  the 
year  1864  had  been  greatly  contracted.     Texas  was  the  only  state 
which  had  not  been  more  or  less  occupied  by  the  Federal  troops  and 
authorities.       Louisiana,  Mississippi,  parts  of  Georgia,  Virginia, 
Florida,  and  South  Carolina  were  still  measurably  controlled  by  the  Con 
federate  authorities.     Twenty-three  army  corps,  all  under  one  head,   and 
under  commanders  who  had  learned  much  of  the  dreadful  art  of  war  from 
experience,  were  environing  what  was  left  of  the  Confederate  area.     The 
garden-spots  of  the  South  were  held  by  the  Union  armies.     Sheridan,  it  was 
said,  had  destroyed  two  thousand  barns  in  the  Shenandoah  valley.     Grant 


310  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

had  facetiously  said  that  a  crow  could  not  fly  over  that  fruitful  valley  w'.thout 
carrying  its  own  rations.  The  resources  of  the  North  had  not  yet  been 
taxed  to  their  uttermost.  The  purpose  of  the  people  and  of  Congress  was 
more  determined  than  ever.  War  was  no  longer  a  pageant.  It  had  proved 
an  ordeal  of  fire  and  blood.  Ambitions  were  suppressed.  The  coil  was 
winding  for  a  grand,  final  struggle  around  the  lessening  and  weakening  gar 
risons  of  the  Confederacy.  It  was  now  "submission  or  conquest."  The 
direful  question  came  closely  to  the  heart  and  hearths  of  the  South. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  year  1865,  rumors  prevailed  of  a  movement  of  the 
army  of  General  Lee  from  Richmond  to  Danville  or  Lynchburg.  This  move 
ment  was  said  to  be  dictated  by  stress  of  circumstances.  The  Confederate 
Government  and  archives  were  to  follow  the  army.  Three  hundred  thousand 
men  had  been  called  for  by  President  Lincoln's  proclamation  of  the  2oth  of 
December,  1864.  The  drafting  for  that  levy  under  it  went  on  vigorously. 
The  Confederate  cruisers  were  still  scouring  the  seas  and  capturing  our  ves 
sels.  But  on  land,  the  successes  of  Sherman  and  Thomas  had  depressed  the 
hopes  of  the  Confederacy  to  the  lowest  point  of  despondency.  Events  were 
thus  preparing  the  way  for  peace. 

At  this  time  —  during  the  holidays  —  it  occurred  to  the  writer,  as  it  did 
doubtless  to  others,  that  the  olive-branch  might  be  tendered  the  South,  un 
der  honorable  conditions  and  with  a  prospect  of  acceptance.  He  was  then 
serving  on  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs.  Upon  that  committee  was 
Mr.  John  T.  Stuart,  of  Springfield,  Illinois.  He  was  an  intimate  friend, 
and  had  been  a  law  partner  of,  President  Lincoln.  He  had  been  a  Whig, 
and  his  sympathies  were  enlisted  with  the  President.  He  became  a  Dem 
ocrat,  and  was  a  conservative  Unionist.  It  was  his  moderate  and  influ 
ential  qualities  which  led  the  writer  to  suggest  a  call,  in  his  company,  upon 
the  President,  with  a  view  to  urge  the  Executive  to  hear  what  was  proposed 
by,  or  to  make  some  tender  or  overture  to,  the  Confederate  authorities.  The 
precise  words  or  tenor  of  the  conversation  which  Mr.  Stuart  and  the  author 
had  with  the  President  were  not  carefully  noted  at  the  time.  Mr.  Stuart, 
who  is  still  living,  states  in  a  recent  letter  to  the  writer,  that  he  remembers 
the  main  facts,  but  not  the  details  of  this  incident  and  interview.  The  Presi 
dent  listened  courteously  and  anxiously  to  the  representations.  He  said 
frankly  that  he  was  anxious  to  have  our  Democratic  aid  and  vote  for  the 
proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  so  as  to  abolish  slavery.  The  writer 
promised  the  President  his  help,  provided  a  sincere  effort  was  made  for  peace 
within  the  Union.  If  the  effort  failed,  he  said  to  the  President,  that  not 
only  by  his  help  would  the  amendment  be  adopted,  but  the  war  would  be 
pursued  with  renewed  vigor.  The  writer  also  conversed  freely  on  the  same 
proposition  with  Mr.  Seward.  Mr.  Seward  regarded  the  acceptance  of 
such  an  amendment  as  absolutely  needed  in  all  negotiations  for  peace,  as  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation  was  of  doubtful  validity,  whereas  an  amendment 


CONFEDERATE  RECRIMINATIONS.  311 

would  be  organic,  indisputable  law.  This  mode  of  assisting  the  troops  was 
not  greatly  regarded  by  our  generals  in  the  field  —  Grant,  Sherman,  Sheri 
dan,  and  Thomas.  They  knew  that  slavery  was  already  a  corpse,  made  so  by 
the  war.  They  did  not  cast  moral  and  political  horoscopes,  as  did  Seward 
and  Lincoln. 

The  holiday  season  at  Richmond  was  one  of  gloom.  A  desperate  call 
was  made  to  make  Robert  E.  Lee,  Generalissimo,  or,  in  the  language  of  that 
day,  Dictator,  with  plenary  powers  of  appointment  in  the  army.  This  was 
afterwards  consummated.  That  gallant  soldier  and  accomplished  gentleman 
held  a  marvelous  power  over  his  compatriots.  He  had  married  the  daughter 
and  heiress  of  George  W.  Parke  Custis  —  the  adopted  son  of  George  Wash 
ington.  In  many  attributes,  he  resembled  the  Father  of  our  Country.  Al 
though  there  was  little  in  the  grandiose  title  proposed  which  could  add 
material  strength  to  the  crumbling  Confederacy,  yet  the  concentration  of 
military  power  and  skill  in  one  intelligent  captain  of  all  the  corps  not  only 
acted  as  an  incentive  upon  the  discouraged  soldiery  of  the  South,  but  gave 
unity  and  vigor  in  the  management  of  the  devoted  remnants  of  the  Southern 
armies.  Complaints  were  made  that  the  civil  officers  of  the  Confederacy 
had  been  grossly  maligned.  Newspapers  in  Virginia  and  Georgia,  the  gov 
ernors  of  several  states,  the  legislature  of  Alabama,  and  members  of  Congress 
from  Missouri,  and  others  prominent  in  the  Confederacy,  then  in  Richmond, 
were  in  a  critical,  if  not  defiant  mood  regarding  the  conduct  of  affairs  by  the 
Confederate  Administration.  "The  Jews  were  frequently  ready  to  stone 
Moses,"  said  the  Richmond  organ  in  defiant  defense  of  Jefferson  Davis  and 
his  Cabinet.  The  Confederate  President  was  called  "  weak,  obstinate, 
capricious,  and  incapable,"  and  his  Cabinet  were  denounced  as  u  im 
beciles."  This  virulent  crimination  soon  became  mutual. 

The  war  went  on.  Devastation  by  cavalry  raids  in  the  border  states 
added  distraction  and  desperation  to  the  prevailing  Confederate  gloom. 
Sherman  had  moved  to  the  sea  before  the  holidays.  His  sixty  miles  swath 
reminded  the  military  scholar  of  the  invasion  of  the  Carnatic,  by  Hyder 
Ali.  Savannah  had  lowered  the  stars  and  bars  and  raised  at  half-mast  the 
Union  flag.  The  new  position  was  accepted  by  its  citizens  with  grace,  and 
with  some  view  to  thriftiness.  Practical  charity  from  New- York  City  sup 
plied  the  needs  of  its  impoverished  people.  Sympathy  thus  began  to  do 
its  benevolent  work.  Meanwhile,  anti-slavery  zealotry,  led  by  Gerrit  Smith 
and  Wendell  Phillips  in  the  lecture-hall,  and  by  Salmon  P.  Chase,  Zachariah 
Chandler,  and  others  in  the  public  service,  omitted  no  occasion  to  magnify 
the  humanity  of  its  cause,  and  to  dignify  the  war  as  one  for  the  enfranchise 
ment  of  the  black  and  the  glory  of  the  white  man.  The  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment  was  demanded  by  them  in  no  piping  tones  of  peace. 

The  Confederacy  had,  then,  really  but  one  substantial  army  in  the  field. 
It  was  that  of  Lee,  at  Richmond.  Richmond  became  the  objective  point 


312  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  all  the  available  Federal  forces.  The  superior  legions  and  resources  of 
Grant  made  but  one  result  certain.  What  Pharsalia  was  to  Pompey,  and 
Waterloo  to  Napoleon,  —  Richmond  was  to  Jefferson  Davis.  European  as 
sistance  to  the  Confederacy  was  no  longer  possible.  The  story  of  the  transfer 
of  the  South  to  England  or  France  was  one  of  the  fierce  illusions  of  that 
distracting  hour  of  despondency.  Even  the  veteran  remnants  of  the  armies 
of  the  South,  so  defiant  and  courageous,  began  to  suffer  for  rations.  They 
were  as  chivalric  as  ever,  but  their  cause  was  fading  away,  day  by  day. 

It  was  under  these  surroundings  that  the  humiliating  alternative  came 
home  to  the  Confederate  leaders  and  people  from  the  secession  point  of  view, 
of  colonial  vassalage  under  a  foreign  yoke,  or  subjugation  by  the  North.  But 
this  degrading  form  of  deliverance  was  soon  turned  aside  as  the  result  of 
panic.  It  was  scouted  as  an  admission  of  defeat  and  ruin.  It  was  well  un 
derstood  that  a  majority  at  Richmond  preferred  a  reunion  with  the  Federal 
system,  and  few  favored  the  idea  of  union  with  a  foreign  power.  One 
reason  for  this  was  the  failure  of  France  and  England  to  give  full  recognition 
and  aid  to  the  Confederate  cause.  The  central  authority  of  the  Confederate 
President  had  been  assailed  with  intense  bitterness.  In  other  states  beside 
Virginia,  a  virulent  opposition  to  the  President,  and  his  policy,  and  his  Cab 
inet  had  arisen.  Of  the  merits  of  this  controversy  it  is  not  intended  to 
speak  in  a  volume  on  "  Federal  legislation."  North  Carolina  was  never  very 
firmly  moored  to  the  Confederacy.  She  had  not  been  enamored  of  nullifica 
tion  in  1832.  She  early  became  a  pronounced  dissentient,  and  then  a  foe  to 
the  Confederate  Administration.  The  suspension  of  the  privilege  of  habeas 
corpus  by  President  Davis  aroused  the  spirit  of  the  descendants  of  the 
signers  of  the  Mecklenburg  declaration.  It  is  alleged  that  the  opposition  to 
the  policy  of  President  Davis  on  the  part  of  the  governors  of  the  states  was 
much  stronger  than  has  been  generally  thought.  It  transpires  now  that 
Governor  Vance  formally  threatened  the  Confederate  Secretary  of  War  that 
he  would  call  on  the  North  Carolina  troops  to  resist  what  he  believed  to  be 
the  unconstitutional  action  of  the  government  on  Carolina  soil ;  and  that  a 
meeting  of  the  governors  of  the  seceding  states  to  formulate  some  concerted 
opposition  to  the  policy  of  the  President,  was  actually  agreed  on.  Separate 
negotiations  for  peace  by  individual  states  were  suggested  and  argued.  So 
far  had  this  matter  gone,  that  Mr.  Porcher  Miles  introduced  into  the  Confed 
erate  Congress,  a  resolution  declaring  that  the  attempt  to  make  peace  with 
the  separate  states  was  violative  of  the  Confederate  Constitution  and  revolu 
tionary.  South  Carolina,  through  one  of  its  ablest  men,  William  W.  Boyce, 
arraigned  the  Richmond  government  upon  state  rights  grounds.  He  de 
nounced  it  as  the  worst  of  tyrannies.  The  governor  of  Mississippi  held  his 
militia  aloof  from  the  Confederate  authorities  who  were  eager  for  more 
troops.  Governor  Brown,  of  Georgia,  was  not  less  a  resolute  stickler  for, 
and  defender  of,  local  sovereignty.  After  Sherman  reached  the  sea,  the  gov- 


THE  DEATH-KNELL  OF  SLAVERY. 

ernor  gave  his  wisdom  and  best  judgment  to  clarify  the  air  and  restore  trade 
and  order,  under  state  authority.  The  Vice-President,  Mr.  Stephens,  did  not 
indulge  in  criminations  ;  but  his  influence  leaned  toward  his  own  state  and  its 
action,  and  not  toward  Virginia  and  President  Davis.  About  this  time  people 
began  to  ask  :  "  Was  it  right  to  secede?  If  so,  why  not  secede  from  the  Con 
federacy  ?"  Here  was  the  rock  of  danger.  This  application  of  the  secession 
theory  gave  some  apprehension  to  those  who  had  founded  a  government 
upon  the  right  of  secession.  The  citizens  of  Savannah,  in  public  assembly, 
yielded  to  this  Socratic  logic,  and  began  betime  the  work  of  rebuilding  their 
shattered  trade  and  fortunes,  and  of  remanding  their  institutions. 

By  the  middle  of  January,  certain  states,  with  more  or  less  regularity  in 
their  constitutional  conventions,  had  decided  to  abolish  slavery.  These  were 
Missouri,  Maryland,  West  Virginia,  and  afterwards,  Tennessee.  In  other 
states  it  was  conceded  that  the  property  in  slaves  was  as  delusive  as  fairy 
money.  Slavery  was  dead, —  it  was  simply  a  question  of  its  interment.  The 
Thirteenth  Amendment  was  to  be  the  death-knell  of  the  Southern  cause. 

Even  General  Lee  recognized  this  fact.  He  advised  the  conscription  of 
the  negroes.  This  was  said  to  be  the  position,  also,  of  Mr.  Davis.  He 
desired  to  liberate  soldier  slaves  and  their  families.  This  scheme  was  made 
a  lever  against  the  forces  of  the  Confederacy.  "  What?  "  it  was  asked,  "  lib 
erate  the  slave  in  order  that  he  may  fight  to  sustain  the  corner-stone  of  the 
Confederacy  —  slavery  !  "  Young  men  of  the  Confederacy  were  now  being 
"  run  off"  to  Mexico  by  parents  and  guardians  to  escape  the  conscription. 
Truly  here  were  signs  of  the  end  ; — the  arming  of  slaves  seriously  consid 
ered,  and  the  whites  fleeing  from  conscription.  It  was  the  Massachusetts 
policy  over  again. 

While  these  discouragements  were  abounding  in  the  Southern  councils, 
Fort  Fisher  fell  before  Admiral  Porter's  bombardment  and  General  Terry's 
assault.  — General  Ames,  who  gallantly  led  the  storming  party,  was  after 
ward  military  governor  in  Mississippi. — Blockade-running  was  thus  ended. 
Wilmington  harbor  was  closed,  and  the  city  itself  exposed  to  the  Federal 
enemy.     The  day  after  Fort  Fisher  fell,  ex-Speaker  Orr,  with  courageous 
audacity,  declared  in  the  Confederate  Congress  for  "  an  honest  effort  of  states 
manship  to  end  this  carnival  of  death."    Mr.  Atkins,  of  Tennessee,  now  Com 
missioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  indulged  in  similar  remarks.    Gold  began  to  fall 
in  Wall  Street,  a  most  significant  sign  of  the  declining  Confederate  orb. 

The  events  of  the  war  are  not  intended  to  be  detailed  herein,  except  as 
may  be  necessary  to  illustrate  the  drift  of  the  Federal  and  Confederate  gov 
ernments.  They  are  not  strictly  a  part  of  the  history  of  Federal  legislation, 
although  they  gave  occasion  for  much  legislation.  The  scope  of  this  volume 
does  not  allow  their  recital.  While  Federal  legislation  strengthened  the  arm 
of  Federal  force,  it  also  leavened  the  elements  of  Southern  society.  It 
affected  Southern  state  governments,  and  to  some  extent  the  Confederate 
20 


314  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Congress  and  army.  It  led  even  General  Lee,  long  before  he  sheathed  his 
sword  at  Appomattox,  to  urge  upon  President  Davis  the  hopelessness  of  fur 
ther  conflict.  He  pressed  upon  the  Confederate  Administration  the  encour 
agement  of  the  peace  sentiment  North.  He  made  emphatic  his  desire  to  end 
the  struggle  upon  honorable  terms.  This  desire  for  peace  was  not  confined 
to  the  South.  The  sacrifice  of  so  many  brave  men  had  aroused  a  pacific 
sentiment  in  the  North.  The  people  yearned  for  the  rehabilitation  of  the 
recusant  states  within  a  peaceful  Union.  This  was  evidenced  by  the  offering 
of  resolutions  looking  toward  peace  and  union,  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  These  were  met  by  counter-resolutions  for  a  more  vigorous  prosecu 
tion  of  the  war.  A  crisis  was  impending.  The  issue  was  sharp.  In  the 
first  session  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  beginning  with  the  month  of  Jan 
uary,  fierce  speeches  were  made  by  the  Republican  leaders  to  sustain  resolu 
tions  for  the  persistent  prosecution  of  the  war.  These  came  from  Amos 
Myers,  Green  Clay  Smith,  Jacob  B.  Blair,  John  H.  Rice,  Gen.  Robert  C. 
Schenck,  and  even  from  Mr.  Kinney,  the  Delegate  from  Utah.  General 
Schenck,  who  was  by  his  natural  and  acquired  qualities  a  leader  in  legis 
lation  and  politics,  voiced  the  paramount  though  weakening  sentiment  of 
the  country  and  of  Congress.  After  asserting  that  the  rebellion  must  be 
effectually  put  down,  he  added:  "and  that  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of 
such  rebellion  in  future,  the  causes  which  led  to  this  one  must  be  perma 
nently  removed."  He  insisted  that  there  was  no  middle  ground  ;  and  that 
there  should  be  no  "  neutrality  or  indifference,  or  anything  short  of  a  hearty 
support  of  the  government."  It  was  a  question,  he  asserted,  between  loyalty 
and  treason.  The  positiveness  of  these  assertions  is  proof  of  the  existence 
of  a  strong  pacific  sentiment. 

From  the  commencement  to  the  close  of  the  war,  the  Democrats  in  Con 
gress  spared  no  efforts  to  bring  about  an  honorable  peace.  As  early  as  July 
29,  1861,  forty-one  Democrats  voted  for  a  proposition  then  offered  by  the 
author. 

It  recited  that — "  It  is  the  part  of  rational  beings  to  terminate  their  differ 
ences  by  rational  methods  ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  differences  between  the 
United  States  authorities  and  the  seceding  states  have  resulted  in  a  civil  war 
characterized  by  bitter  hostility  and  extreme  atrocity  ;  and  although  the  party 
in  the  seceded  states  are  guilty  of  breaking  the  national  unity  and  resisting 
the  national  authority  ;  yet, 

"  Be  it  Resolved,  First.  That  while  we  make  undiminished  and 
increased  exertions  by  our  navy  and  army  to  maintain  the  integrity  and 
stability  of  this  government,  the  common  laws  of  war,  consisting  of  those 
maxims  of  humanity,  moderation,  and  honor  which  are  a  part  of  the  inter 
national  code,  ought  to  be  observed  by  both  parties,  and  for  a  stronger  reason 
than  exists  between  two  alien  nations,  inasmuch  as  the  two  parties  have  a 
common  ancestry,  history,  prosperity,  glory,  government,  and  union,  and 
are  now  unhappily  engaged  in  lacerating  their  common  country. 


RESOLUTIONS  FOR  A  PEACE  COMMISSION.  315 

"  Second.  That,  resulting  from  these  premises,  while  there  ought  to  be 
left  open,  as  between  two  alien  nations,  the  same  means  for  preventing  the 
war  being  carried  to  outrageous  extremities,  there  ought  also  to  be  left 
open  some  means  for  the  restoration  of  peace  and  union. 

' '  Third.  That  to  this  end  —  the  restoration  of  peace  and  union  on  the 
basis  of  the  Constitution  —  there  be  appointed  a  committee  of  one  member 
from  each  state,  who  shall  report  to  this  House,  at  its  next  session,  such 
amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  shall  assuage  all 
grievances,  and  bring  about  a  reconstruction  of  the  national  unity  ;  and  that 
for  the  preparation  of  such  adjustment  and  the  conference  requisite  for  that 
purpose,  there  be  appointed  a  commission  of  seven  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  consisting  of  Edward  Everett,  of  Massachusetts,  Franklin  Pierce,  of 
New  Hampshire,  Millard  Fillmore,  of  New- York,  Reverdy  Johnson,  of 
Maryland,  Martin  Van  Buren,  of  New-York,  Thomas  Ewing,  of  Ohio, 
and  James  Guthrie,  of  Kentucky,  who  shall  request  from  the  so-called  Con 
federate  States  the  appointment  of  a  similar  commission,  and  who  shall 
meet  and  confer  on  the  subject  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the  first  Monday 
of  September  next.  And  that  the  committee  appointed  from  this  House 
notify  said  commissioners  of  their  appointment  and  function,  and  report 
their  action  to  the  next  session  as  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  to  be  proposed  by  Congress  to  the  states  for  their  rati 
fication,  according  to  the  fifth  article  of  said  Constitution." 

In  its  preamble,  this  resolution  was  based  upon  Vattel's  famous  chapter  ; — 
the  same  from  which  Thaddeus  Stevens  deftly  and  cunningly  drew  his  rule 
of  warfare  against  the  Confederacy,  on  the  theory  that  the  states  had  in  law, 
as  in  fact,  seceded  from  the  Union,  and  were  outside  of  the  Constitution,  and 
subject  to  all  the  rules  and  consequences  of  war  which  obtain  among  bel 
ligerent  and  alien  nations. 

On  the  5th  of  August,  1861,  during  the  same  extraordinary  session,  Mr. 
Calvert,  of  Maryland,  proposed  the  appointment  of  a  committee  which  should 
examine  into  the  original  causes  of  the  dissensions,  and  recommend  such 
remedies  as  would  restore  peace  and  union.  His  remedy  was  by  amend 
ments  of  the  Constitution.  It  received  the  Democratic  vote  only.  Mr. 
Henry  May,  of  Maryland,  offered  another  resolution.  It  had  a  most  pro 
nounced  preamble  against  the  uncompromising  and  subjugating  spirit  of  the 
Republican  party.  He  favored  the  appointment  of  peace  commissioners, 
and  an  armistice.  Mr.  Saulsbury,  in  the  Senate,  on  the  4th  of  December, 
1 86 1,  offered  resolutions  nearly  similar  to  those  offered  by  the  writer.  A 
year  after,  on  the  3d  of  December,  1862,  Senator  Garrett  Davis  proposed 
the  election  of  delegates  to  consider  the  situation.  Mr.  Vallandigham  fol 
lowed  with  an  earnest  resolution  for  peace,  and  for  the  security  of  the  rights 
of  the  states  and  sections,  within  the  Union  under  the  Constitution.  Five 


316  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

days  afterwards,  Fernando  Wood,  a  member  of  Congress  from  New- York, 
indited  a  letter  to  President  Lincoln  on  the  subject  of  peace. 

In  this  letter  Mr.  Wood  stated  that  he  was  advised,  by  an  authority  relia 
ble  and  truthful,  that  the  Southern  States  would  send  representatives  to  the 
next  Congress,  provided  that  a  full  and  general  amnesty  should  permit  them  to 
do  so.  No  guaranty  or  promises  were  asked  for,  other  than  amnesty.  He  also 
stated  that  he  had  communicated  this  information  to  the  mayor  of  New- York, 
who,  at  that  time,  held  confidential  relations  with  members  of  the  Ad 
ministration.  He  appealed  to  the  President  to  suspend  the  fighting,  and  to 
procure  something  definite  from  persons  connected  with  the  Confederate 
authorities.  He  asked  the  serious  attention  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  this  subject, 
on  account  of  the  magnitude  of  the  interests  at  stake.  "If  it  [the  informa 
tion]  shall  prove  groundless,"  said  he,  "no  harm  shall  have  been  done. 
If  it  shall  prove  well  founded,  there  is  no  esteem  too  high  to  place  upon 
its  national  value."  The  President  replied  to  Mr.  Wood  on  the  i2th 
of  December,  1862.  He  referred  to  the  important  paragraph  in  the  letter, 
and  stated  that  he  suspected  the  information  would  prove  groundless.  "  Un 
derstanding  the  phrase  in  the  paragraph  above  quoted,  namely,  '  that  the 
Southern  States  would  send  representatives  to  the  next  Congress,'  to  be 
substantially  that  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  would  cease  resistance 
and  would  re-inaugurate,  submit  to,  and  maintain  the  national  authority  within 
the  limits  of  such  states,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  I  say," 
said  Mr.  Lincoln,  "that,  in  such  case,  the  war  would  cease  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  if,  within  a  reasonable  time,  a  full  and  general 
amnesty  were  necessary  for  such  end,  it  would  not  be  withheld."  He  at  the 
same  time  said  to  Mr.  Wood  :  ' '  The  people  of  the  Southern  States  already 
know  this,  and  when  they  choose,  if  ever,  they  can  communicate  with  me 
unequivocally."  But  the  President  did  not  think  it  proper  to  suspend  mili 
tary  operations  in  order  to  try  any  experiment  of  negotiation.  Mr.  Wood 
replied,  renewing  his  suggestions  to  suspend  military  operations.  Nothing 
came  of  this  correspondence. 

Mr.  Wood,  on  the  I4th  of  December,  1863,  moved  for  commissioners 
and  negotiations.  The  motion  received  fifty-nine  votes  ;  six  Democrats  only 
voting  against  it.  On  the  9th  of  June,  1864,  Senator  Garrett  Davis  in 
troduced  a  joint  resolution  in  which  he  proposed  a  cessation  of  arms  and  an 
amnesty,  with  a  view  to  a  convention  of  the  people  of  all  the  states  to  re 
construct  their  Union.  Green  Clay  Smith,  of  Kentucky,  offered  three  reso 
lutions,  one  of  which  had  much  significance  because  of  the  vote  it  received. 
It  recited  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pass  all  necessary  bills  to  supply 
men  and  money  for  the  army ;  and  the  duty  of  the  people  to  render  every 
aid  to  the  constituted  authorities.  This  received  every  vote  of  both  parties, 
save  that  of  Benjamin  G.  Harris,  of  Maryland.  Other  resolutions  were 
offered  in  the  summer  of  1864.  Nearly  all  were  of  the  same  tenor,  and  had 


PEACE  CONFERENCE  AT  NIAGARA.  317 

the  same  fate.  Andrew  J.  Rogers,  of  New  Jersey,  and  John  L.  Dawson, 
of  Pennsylvania,  offered  resolutions  looking  to  peace.  Alexander  Long,  of 
Ohio,  re-offered  the  resolution  which  the  writer  offered  in  1861,  for  the 
appointment  of  commissioners.  Mr.  Lazear,  of  Pennsylvania,  favored  an 
armistice  and  the  election  of  delegates.  Frank  Le  Blonde,  of  Ohio,  followed 
with  a  resolution  for  commissioners.  The  Chicago  Convention  met,  and 
while  nominating  a  soldier  for  President,  Gen.  George  B.  McClellan,  it  held 
out  by  its  platform  the  olive-branch  which,  as  the  election  showed,  the 
people  were  then  unprepared  to  accept.  Thereafter  transpired  the  corre 
spondence  begun  on  the  Canada  side  of  Niagara  Falls,  between  George  N. 
Sanders,  of  Kentucky,  and  Horace  Greeley.  Certain  irresponsible  persons 
—  Kirk,  Jacquess,  and  others  —  had  already  ventured  over  our  lines  to  Rich 
mond  and  made  tentative,  unauthorized  proposals  for  peace.  Their  at 
tempts  gave  occasion  for  ridicule.  They  were  the  farcical  overture  of  more 
serious  attempts.  One  of  the  latter  was  at  Niagara. 

Mr.  Sanders  was  a  man  of  extraordinary  ability  and  undaunted  hardi 
hood.  He  had  been  consul  to  London.  He  was  an  owner  as  well  as  a  writer 
for  the  Democratic  Review,  when  it  was  representative  of  Young  America 
and  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  He  was  a  man  of  remarkable  foresight.  He 
was  among  the  first  to  perceive  the  dangerous  tremors  of  disunion  in  the 
Charleston  Convention,  and  afterwards  the  tottering  condition  of  the  Con 
federacy.  But  he  was  not  the  man  to  be  selected  to  carry  on  delicate  nego 
tiations.  He  was,  however,  the  fountain  from  which  the  negotiations  sprang. 
He  met  Mr.  Greeley  at  the  Clifton  House,  Niagara  Falls,  in  July,  1864.  He 
wrote  a  note  to  that  gentleman,  in  which  he  declared  that  he  was  authorized 
to  say  that  Clement  C.  Clay,  of  Alabama,  James  P.  Holcombe,  of  Virginia, 
with  himself,  were  ready  and  willing  to  go  at  once  to  Washington,  upon 
protection  being  given  by  the  President  or  Secretary  of  State.  He  also  asked 
protection  for  another,  whose  name  was  not  then  to  be  mentioned.  Mr. 
Greeley  responded  on  the  iyth,  recognizing  Mr.  Sanders  as  accredited  from 
Richmond  ;  and  in  that  capacity  as  the  bearer  of  proposals  looking  to  the 
establishment  of  peace.  He  said  that  he  was  authorized  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States  to  tender  a  safe  conduct  and  to  accompany  them  at 
the  earliest  time  it  would  be  agreeable.  This  letter  was  directed  to  the  three 
gentlemen  named.  Mr.  Clay  and  Professor  Holcombe  responded  to  Mr. 
Greeley,  that  there  was  some  misapprehension  of  facts  ;  that  they  had  not 
been  accredited  from  Richmond  as  stated.  They  said,  however,  that  they 
\vere  in  the  confidential  employment  of  their  government ;  that  they  were 
familiar  with  its  wishes  ;  that  the  circumstances  disclosed  in  the  correspond 
ence,  if  they  were  communicated  to  Richmond,  would  at  once  bring  them 
the  proper  authority  ;  and  that  they  desired  to  terminate  the  calamities  of  the 
war  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  Mr.  Jacob  Thompson  is  understood 
to  have  been  the  third  man  referred  to  for  safe  conduct.  The  correspondence 


318  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

went  on  until  Maj.  John  Hay,  Assistant  Adjutant-General,  appeared  on  the 
scene.  He  intervened  in  behalf  of  the  President.  He  displayed  a  letter 
from  President  Lincoln,  dated  the  i8th  of  July,  1864.  In  this  letter  it 
was  stated  that  —  "any  proposal  which  embraced  the  restoration  of  peace, 
integrity  of  the  whole  Union,  and  the  abandonment  of  slavery,  which  comes 
by  and  with  an  authority  that  can  control  the  armies  now  at  war  against  the 
United  States,  would  be  received  and  considered  by  the  Executive  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  and  would  be  met  by  liberal  terms  on  other 
substantial  and  collateral  points,  and  the  bearer  or  bearers  thereof  shall  have 
safe  conduct  both  ways." 

This  correspondence  indicates,  without  doubt,  President  Lincoln's  anxiety 
for  peace.  But  a  misunderstanding  interposed.  The  safe  conduct  was  to  be 
given  on  the  hypothesis  that  Mr.  Clay  and  his  confreres  were  duly  accredited 
from  Richmond.  This  misapprehension  being  corrected,  the  negotiations 
fell  through.  It  is  alleged  by  ex-Senator  Harlan,  in  a  letter  dated  April 
10,  1885,  that  he  knew  that  President  Lincoln  had  no  confidence  in  the  good 
faith  of  this  movement,  and  that  Mr.  Greeley  had  a  different  opinion.  But 
Mr.  Greeley  was  sent  to  Niagara.  The  writer  agrees  with  Mr.  Greeley 
and  differs  from  the  ex-Senator.  The  latter  produces  no  other  proof  of 
his  knowledge  than  an  indefinite  telegram  from  President  Lincoln  to  Mr. 
Greeley.  It  said:  "I  was  not  expecting  you  to  send  me  a  letter,  but  to 
bring  me  a  man  or  men."  This  telegram  is  consistent  with  the  impressions 
of  the  author.  Mr.  Greeley  departed  from  Niagara  Falls  regretting  the 
sad  termination  of  the  initiatory  steps  taken  for  peace.  Although  this  at 
tempt  was  a  failure,  it  was  the  first  attempt  looking  in  that  direction.  It 
led  to  subsequent  attempts  which  had  more  reasonable  probability  of  success. 

These  peace  missives  were  phrased  most  cautiously  ;  but  they  evinced  the 
anxiety  of  President  Lincoln,  Horace  Greeley,  and  other  influential  Repub 
licans  to  end  the  war  on  "liberal  terms."  Mr.  Greeley,  in  reply  to  the 
philippics  of  the  press  —  in  a  note  of  the  2Oth  of  July,  1864  —  stated  that  he 
had  no  intercourse  with  the  Confederate  gentlemen  at  the  Clifton  House  but 
such  as  he  was  fully  authorized  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  hold, 
and  that  he  had  done  nothing  in  the  premises  but  in  fulfillment  of  his  in 
junction.  This  statement  was  fully  confirmed  in  the  sequence  of  events. 

What  had  been  going  on  in  the  Southern  councils  ?  Were  the  Southern 
statesmen  contemplating  measures  for  a  peace  ?  Henry  S.  Foote,  Represent 
ative  from  Tennessee  in  the  Confederate  Congress,  had  tendered,  as  early  as 
September,  1862,  a  resolution  for  commissioners,  to  be  empowered  to  pro 
pose  the  terms  of  a  just  and  honorable  peace.  A  substitute  not  unfriendly  to 
this  object  was  offered  by  Mr.  Holt,  of  Georgia.  Both  were  tabled  ;  receiv 
ing,  however,  twenty-six  favorable  votes,  to  fifty-nine  adverse.  Several 
other  propositions  were  offered  in  the  Confederate  Congress  in  1863,  looking 
to  pacification.  Perhaps  no  man  in  the  South  gave  more  trouble  to  the  Con- 


SOUTHERN  PEACE  PROPOSITIONS.  319 

federacy  than  the  famous  statesman,  Mr.  Foote.  He  had  distinguished  him 
self  in  the  compromise  struggle  of  1850.  He  was  then  a  Senator  from  Mis 
sissippi.  Although  a  man  of  great  physical  intrepidity,  he  was  not  reckoned 
in  all  respects  a  sage  adviser.  Mr.  Davis  had  been  his  foe  in  Mississippi. 
Their  antagonisms  were  carried,  with  the  changing  fortunes  of  time,  into  the 
Confederate  Capitol.  Before  the  war  ended,  Mr.  Foote  was  arrested  by  the 
Richmond  authorities ;  but  he  was  released  on  a  promise  to  leave  for  the 
North.  Those  who  knew  him  will  recall  his  chivalric  devotion  to  his 
changeful  opinions.  He  was  the  author  of  an  eccentric  proposition  which 
he  offered  in  the  winter  of  1864.- 6$,  looking  to  a  reconstruction  of  the  Con 
federate  Government  with  the  Northwestern  states. 

In  September,  1864,  peace  resolutions  were  introduced 'into  the  senate  of 
Virginia.  Commissioners  were  named  in  them.  They  were  discussed  at 
length  and  postponed  unanimously.  Similar  resolutions  were  offered  in  the 
legislatures  of  Georgia  and  North  Carolina,  and  with  like  effect.  Several 
months  before  this,  on  the  23d  of  May,  Mr.  Leach,  of  North  Carolina,  created 
a  sensation  in  the  Confederate  Congress,  by  a  resolution  asking  for  an  armis 
tice  and  commissioners,  with  other  provisions  looking  to  the  honor,  dignity, 
and  independence  of  the  states,  and  compatible  with  the  safety  of  their  social 
and  political  rights.  It  created  quite  a  discussion.  All  such  discussions 
were  damaging  to  the  party  on  the  defensive. 

It  is  evident  from  these  movements  that  in  the  South  there  was  perpetual 
murmuring,  either  against  the  conduct  of  the  war  on  the  part  of  the  Confed 
erate  rulers  and  armies,  or  against  the  condition  in  which  the  people  found 
themselves  by  reason  of  the  devastation  of  the  war  and  the  infractions  of  per 
sonal  liberty  by  the  Richmond  authorities. 

In  the  recent  discussion  between  General  Sherman  and  Jefferson  Davis, 
or  their  friends,  in  relation  to  the  position  of  Mr.  Davis  on  the  question  of 
secession  in  and  from  the  Southern  Confederacy,  the  facts  were  not  suffi 
ciently  developed  for  an  intelligent  judgment  on  the  issue.  But  it  is  impos 
sible  to  believe,  or  infer,  from  what  has  been  developed,  that  the  right  to 
secede  had  been  denied  by  Mr.  Davis  to  the  Confederacy,  after  such  vigorous 
assertion  of  it  by  his  resolutions  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in  1860, 
and  after  the  great  hazard  which  he  and  his  friends  ran  in  practically  carry 
ing  out  his  theory.  Pertinent  to  this  discussion,  there  is  in  the  archives  at 
Raleigh,  a  letter  from  Gov.  Zebulon  B.  Vance  to  the  Confederate  President. 
This  letter  was  written  on  the  3Oth  of  December,  1863.  It  began  by  confessing 
that  there  were  sources  of  discontent  in  North  Carolina  with  the  Confederate 
Government.  The  governor  asserted  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  remove 
that  discontent  except  by  making  some  effort  at  negotiation  with  the  enemy. 
He  asserted  that  the  Northern  men  seemed  to  be  looking  for  peace,  and  that  if 
fair  terms  were  rejected,  it  would  tend  greatly  to  strengthen  and  intensify  the 
War  feeling,  and  rally  all  classes  to  a  more  cordial  support  of  the  govern- 


320  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ment.  He  favored  a  constant  tender  of  negotiations.  In  doing  so,  he  would 
keep  conspicuously  before  the  world  a  disclaimer  of  the  responsibility  of  the 
Confederate  Government  for  the  great  slaughter  of  our  race.  He  would  con 
vince  the  humblest  of  their  citizens  that  the  government  was  tender  of  their 
lives  and  happiness.  He  did  not  suggest  any  method  of  negotiation,  or  any 
terms.  "The  effort  to  obtain  peace,"  said  he,  "is  the  principal  matter." 
Mr.  Davis  replied  at  length  on  the  8th  of  January,  1864.  He  desired  Gov 
ernor  Vance  to  write  his  suggestions  as  to  the  method  of  opening  the  negotia 
tions,  and  as  to  the  terms.  He  spoke  of  the  insuperable  objections  to  the 
line  of  policy  proposed  by  the  governor.  He  referred  to  the  fact  that  he 
had  made  three  distinct  unsuccessful  efforts  to  communicate  with  the  author 
ities  at  Washington.  He  said  that  commissioners  had  been  sent  before  hos 
tilities  were  begun,  and  that  the  Washington  Government  refused  to  receive 
them,  or  hear  what  they  had  to  say.  He  referred  to  Vice-President  Stephens, 
as  having  made  a  patriotic  tender  of  his  services,  in  the  hope  of  being  able 
to  promote  the  cause  of  humanity.  After  alluding  to  many  revolutionary 
memories  connected  with  North  Carolina,  Mr.  Davis  said  :  "  I  cannot  recall 
at  this  time  one  instance  in  which  I  have  failed  to  announce  that  our  only 
desire  was  peace,  and  the  only  terms  which  formed  a  sine  qua  non,  were  pre 
cisely  those  which  you  suggest,  namely,  a  demand  only  to  be  let  alone."  He 
referred  ironically  to  the  fact  that  peace  was  only  possible  by  the  gracious 
pardon  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  emancipation  of  the  slaves, 
swearing  allegiance  and  obedience  to  him  and  his  proclamation,  and  becom 
ing,  in  fact,  the  slaves  of  their  own  negroes.  Waxing  indignant,  President 
Davis  exclaims:  "I  do  not  believe  that  the  vilest  wretch  would  accept 
such  terms  for  himself."  He  advised  Governor  Vance  that  he  might  count 
on  his  aid  in  every  effort  to  spare  North  Carolina  the  scenes  of  civil  war 
fare  which  would  devastate  its  homes  if  the  designs  of  the  traitors  in  her 
midst  should  make  headway.  He  expressed  his  fear  that  the  governor 
would  be  driven  to  the  use  of  force  to  repress  treason.  It  was  well  un 
derstood  that  President  Davis  believed,  if  he  did  not  say,  that  the  war  must 
go  on  until  the  last  of  his  generation  fell  in  his  tracks  and  his  children 
seized  his  musket  to  fight  the  battle,  unless  the  right  to  self-government 
were  acknowledged  by  the  United  States.  "We  are  not  fighting  for  slav 
ery,"  said  he,  "we  are  fighting  for  independence;  and  that,  or  extermina 
tion,  we  will  have."  Such  assertions  as  this  had  much  to  do  with  the 
adoption  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  as  a  part  of  the  programme  for  strengthen 
ing  the  Federal  cause,  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  then,  in  that  winter 
of  i864~'65,  considered  a  desideratum.  Mr.  Seward  and  the  President  con 
sidered  this  amendment  worth  an  army.  Whether  they  were  right  or  not, 
the  amendment  was  not  pressed  until  just  before  the  negotiations  at  Hampton 
Roads,  hereinafter  narrated.  This  amendment  had  passed  the  Senate  during 


THE  POWER  TO  AMEND  THE  CONSTITUTION.  321 

the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress.  It  failed  then  to  pass  the 
House.  Upon  the  6th  of  January,  1865,  it  was  called  up  by  James  M.  Ash 
ley,  of  Ohio.  He  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  it  had  been  rejected 
at  the  previous  session.  The  motion  was  debated  with  much  acrimony. 
The  debate  was  resumed  with  less  feeling  on  the  9th,  when  Daniel  W.  Voor- 
hees,  then  a  member,  now  Senator,  from  Indiana,  with  rare  felicities  of  elo 
cution  and  cogency,  made  what  was  for  him  a  temperate  speech.  His  speech 
was  noteworthy,  because  it  was  based  upon  the  thorough  success  of  the 
Union  cause.  Whether  the  amendment  was  adopted  or  not,  —  and  he  did 
not  favor  it,  —  he  believed  the  Confederate  cause  was  lost.  It  was  a  matter  of 
grave  doubt  as  to  its  passage.  It  required  a  two-thirds  vote  for  its  adoption  ; 
and  many  Democratic  votes  were  needed  to  carry  the  measure.  Mr.  Yea- 
man,  of  Kentucky,  and  Mr.  Odell,  of  New- York,  made  speeches  in  its  favor 
on  the  same  day.  The  debate  was  continued.  Its  effect  was  to  consolidate 
the  opposition.  This  postponed,  if  it  did  not  imperil,  its  final  passage. 

Mr.  Pendleton  made  an  able  speech  on  the  I2th,  in  opposition.  The 
rumor  was  rife  that  three  votes  were  lacking.  Strenuous  efforts  were  being 
made  to  overcome  the  objections  of  members.  The  writer  urged  those  whom 
he  could  influence,  to  consider  the  proposition  in  the  light  of  new  events. 
Many  members,  like  Mr.  Pendleton,  doubted  the  power  to  amend  as  pro 
posed.  He  held  that  the  right  to  amend  was  limited  in  two  ways  :  First, 
by  the  letter  ;  and  second,  by  the  spirit,  scope,  and  intent  of  the  Constitution. 
It  was  a  question  of  compact.  He  held  that  one  state,  the  smallest, —  Rhode 
Island, — could,  of  right,  resist  such  an  amendment  by  force.  Her  cause 
would  become  sanctified  by  God. 

The  writer,  in  answering  the  speech  of  his  colleague,  Mr.  Pendleton, 
said:  u  The  power  of  amendment  is  essential  to  peace,  safety,  and  sover 
eignty  ;  and  it  should  be  remembered  that,  even  if  the  power  may  now 
threaten  to  destroy,  the  power  to  save  is  forever  bound  up  with  it.  Under 
the  very  ribs  of  death,  at  the  last  moment  this  power  may  be  invoked  to  create 
the  heart  and  soul  of  union,  and  that,  too,  by  the  array  of  states  in  their 
sovereign  capacity  as  modified  by  their  granted  powers."  This  remark  had 
reference  to  the  rumor  that  a  commissioner  of  the  United  States  was  then 
in  Richmond  —  Mr.  Blair — with  the  confidence  and  assent  of  the  Adminis 
tration,  to  meet  a  commissioner  on  the  part  of  the  Confederate  authority  ;  and 
that  they  had  agreed  to  call  a  national  convention,  in  correspondence  with 
the  Chicago  platform  upon  which  Mr.  Pendleton  had  been  a  candidate  for 
Vice-President.  In  arguing  upon  the  power  to  pass  the  constitutional  amend 
ment  abolishing  slavery,  the  writer  said  :  "  If  a  convention  of  states  could 
take  jurisdiction  to  protect  property,  it  could  do  so  to  destroy  property.  It 
is  admitted  that  the  states  individually  could  do  this.  If  by  the  Constitution, 
they  as  states  consenting  to  it  have  provided  a  mode  of  doing  it,  what 
matters  it  whether  it  be  done  by  them  in  their  individual  capacity  or  in  their 


322  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

conventional  capacity?  Whenever  two-thirds  here  agree  to  propose  an 
amendment,  and  three-fourths  shall  ratify,  either  by  convention  or  legislature, 
that  proposition  becomes  a  part  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  the  states  that  do 
this  in  the  first  instance, —  all  according  in  making  the  amendment  clause; 
all  again  according  by  their  conventions  in  proposing,  and  again  by  ratify 
ing."  There,  the  writer  joined  his  colleague  in  singing  hosanna  to  that 
principle  of  our  government  known  as  the  sovereignty  of  the  states.  All 
the  states,  sovereign  in  their  reserved  spheres,  dropped  their  sceptres  before 
the  Federal  emblem  in  all  cases  where,  as  in  the  making  of  an  amendment, 
the  Constitution  is  declared  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  It  did  not 
matter  that  the  power  was  dangerous  when  left  unlimited  in  the  Federal  head  ; 
for  all  power  tended  to  abuse.  It  had  been  argued  that  the  states  were  un 
limited  and  absolute  in  their  sovereignty,  and  therefore  that  the  Federal 
Government  was  not  sovereign.  Was  it  forgotten  that  the  states,  in  their 
unlimited  and  sovereign  convention,  deriving  their  powers  from  the  original 
consent  of  all,  gave  up  portions  of  their  sovereignty  and  modified  it,  as  Mr. 
Calhoun  held,  by  the  mandatory  clause?  The  states  were  the  constituent 
elements  of  the  Federal  Government,  and  by  their  state  action  they  could 
create  and  they  could  destroy.  The  writer,  after  quoting  Mr.  Madison  in 
corroboration  of  his  argument,  quoted  Mr.  Calhoun  upon  the  subject.  That 
quotation  absolutely  settled  the  proposition  in  the  minds  of  the  House.  It 
was  found  in  the  sixth  volume,  page  thirty-six,  of  his  works.  In  1828, 
the  South  Carolina  Legislature  asked  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Calhoun  upon  this 
and  kindred  subjects.  In  his  declaration  of  political  powers,  drawn  up  for 
his  state,  he  taught  that  the  people  of  that  state  by  adopting  the  Federal 
Constitution  had  modified  its  original  right  of  sovereignty ;  and  that,  by 
its  consent  in  becoming  a  member  of  the  Union,  a  portion  of  that  sovereignty 
had  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  three-fourths  of  the  states,  in  whom,  he  said, 
the  highest  power  known  to  the  Constitution  exists. 

The  right,  therefore,  to  abolish  slavery  by  the  mode  prescribed  in  the 
Constitution,  was  vindicated  by  the  dictum  of  the  leading  philosopher  of  the 
state  rights  school.  Quite  a  discussion  arose  during  the  debate,  as  to  where 
the  power  was  lodged  or  limited  in  relation  to  the  abolition  of  slavery.  Be 
fore  the  debate  was  concluded,  however,  very  few  upon  either  side  denied  that 
the  power  to  amend  was  unlimited,  save  by  the  exceptions  mentioned,  and 
save  by  the  mode  prescribed  in  the  Constitution.  That  mode  is  the  only  safe 
guard  against  unwise  amendments.  It  is  ample,  however,  inasmuch  as  no 
amendment  can  be  made  except  by  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Con 
gress  and  three-fourths  of  the  states.  On  the  loth  of  January,  1865,  while 
Mr.  Kasson  was  speaking,  Mr.  Mallory,  of  Kentucky,  asked  whether,  by  an 
amendment  of  the  Constitution,  the  government  might  not  be  changed  so 
as  to  convert  it  into  a  monarchy,  aristocracy,  or  a  despotism.  Mr.  Kasson 
evaded  the  question,  but,  with  his  permission,  the  writer  answered  it  by 


THE  AMENDMENT  POWER  UNLIMITED.  323 

saying:  u  I  carry  the  Democratic  doctrine  to  such  an  extent,  that  I  maintain 
that  the  people,  speaking  through  three-fourths  of  the  states,  in  pursuance  of 
the  mode  prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  have  the  right  to  amend  it  in  every 
particular,  except  the  two  specified  in  that  instrument ;  that  this  includes 
the  right  to  erect  a  monarchy  ;  to  make,  if  you  please,  the  King  of  Dahomey 
our  king."  This  expression  excited  surprise  upon  both  sides  of  the  House. 
It  was  animadverted  upon  by  Mr.  Pendleton  and  by  others,  who  had  given 
much  study  to  the  question.  But  as  the  debate  progressed,  this  construction 
of  the  power  to  amend  became  the  fixed  opinion  of  a  majority  even  of  those 
who  thought  it  then  inexpedient  to  use  the  power.  Mr.  Boutwell  held  the 
power  to  be  limited  only  by  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution.  Mr.  Thayer 
thereupon  argued  that  that  was  equivalent  to  saying  there  are  no  limitations, 
which  was  his  own  position.  Mr.  Dawes,  grasping  the  question  compre 
hensively  at  once,  argued  that  since  the  preamble  was  submitted  to  three- 
fourth  of  the  states,  they  were  the  law-makers  and  law-expounders,  who 
could  as  well  alter  the  preamble  as  any  other  part  of  the  instrument ;  that  it 
was  competent  for  them,  as  a  tribunal  from  which  there  was  no  appeal,  to 
say  that  anything,  save  the  limitations  prescribed  by  the  instrument  itself, 
does  or  does  not  contribute  to  the  ends  set  forth  in  the  preamble,  even  to  the 
extent  of  permitting  a  man  of  foreign  birth  to  be  chosen  President, —  even  the 
King  of  Dahomey  himself, —  with  which  Mr.  Thayer  and  others  agreed. 

A  few  quotations  will  be  pardoned  from  this  speech,  as  the  theme  was 
the  capital  one  of  the  war,  and  the  bete  nolr  in  the  path  of  peace.  Having 
proved  that  the  strictest  sect  of  Southern  statesmen,  including  Davis  himself, 
Jefferson,  and  John  C.  Calhoun,  acknowledged  the  power  by  amendment 
over  this  subject  of  slavery,  and  sought  to  exercise  it,  and  sought  further  by 
amendment  to  prevent  its  exercise  when  it  might  impair  or  destroy  their  in 
stitution,  the  writer  then  said,  addressing  the  Chair  :  "Is  my  colleague  (Mr. 
Pendleton)  a  better  states  rights  man  than  Jefferson  Davis  ?  Or,  to  drop  to 
the  other  extreme,  does  he,  nunc  fro  tune,  join  my  other  colleague  (Mr. 
Ashley),  who  then  denied,  and  yet  denies,  the  power  by  amendment  to  estab 
lish  slavery,  as  unrepublican  ?  It  was  with  some  amusement  that  I  listened 
to  my  two  colleagues  (Messrs.  Pendleton  and  Ashley)  yesterday.  How 
adroitly  the  Democratic  member  sought  to  catch  the  Republican.  How  he 
plied  him  to  admit  the  power  to  establish  slavery  !  How  shrewdly  my  col 
league  on  the  other  side  evaded  !  On  the  other  hand,  members  on  the  other 
side  sought  to  entangle  my  colleague  (Mr.  Pendleton)  with  some  of  his  former 
votes  !  How  both  evaded  the  issues  presented  in  their  former  positions  !  while 
the  humble  member  who  now  addresses  you,  sir,  sat  complacently  consistent 
amid  the  melo-dramatic  performance,  ready  to  admit  that  the  power  to 
change  the  fundamental  law  by  amendment  is  unlimited,  under  the  guards 
and  modes  prescribed,  even  to  the  establishment  of  slavery  or  a  monarchy 
of  entire  freedom  or  entire  democracy.  Both  of  my  friends  deny  this  as  ex- 


324  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

treme  and  heterodox :  the  one,  because  he  would  have  nothing  but  limited 
republicanism  as  the  form  of  our  government ;  — that  is  my  Democratic  col 
league  who  is  so  republican  ;  the  other,  because  he  would  have  nothing  but 
sweeping  democracy  as  the  basis  of  our  Constitution  ;  —  that  is  my  Republican 
colleague  who  is  so  democratic.  The  wishes  of  each  color  their  present  argu 
ments  as  to  power.  When  slavery  is  to  be  guaranteed,  my  colleague  from 
Cincinnati  believes  with  me  in  the  power  to  amend,  and  my  colleague  from 
Toledo  denies  it.  When  it  is  to  be  abolished,  my  colleague  from  Toledo 
believes  with  me  in  the  power  to  amend,  and  the  other  denies  it.  Both  deny 
the  power  when  slavery  is  to  be  affected,  and  both  admit  it  when  slavery  is 
to  be  affected.  I  have  them  both  on  either  side,  and  each  on  both  sides,  and 
both  with  me.  I  accept  the  power  in  either  case  as  they  claim  it,  but  go 
beyond  them  both  ;  for  I  stand  on  a  principle.  They  are  enamored  of  the 
power  only  when  one  case  is  absent.  Like  the  fond  lover  of  two  maidens, 
they  love  the  one  "when  the  other  dear  charmer's  away."  Yet  they  are 
unfaithful  to  both,  because  they  are  so  attached  to  either — unfaithful,  because 
they  are  not  upon  the  principle.  I  can  extend  to  them  (as  a  member  from 
New- York  used  to  say  here  in  olden  times),  from  the  serene  Olympian 
heights  of  my  cerulean  consistency,  the  eternal  principle  of  republicanism 
and  democracy  which  will  reconcile  them  both  to  duty  and  the  Constitution. 
Both  my  colleagues  hold  that  to  concede  the  power  and  exercise  it  in  cer 
tain  cases  is  to  subvert  the  Constitution.  If  slavery  is  to  be  protected,  the 
member  from  Toledo  believes  the  government  destroyed.  His  only  appeal 
is  to  the  sword  of  revolution.  Never  would  he  consent  that  the  power  to 
amend  should  include  the  power  to  establish  slavery  in  Ohio  ;  never.  He 
would  sound  the  tocsin  of  inevitable  resistance.  If  slavery  is  to  be  abolished 
by  the  same  power,  the  other  member  blows  the  trumpet  and  beats  the  drum 
to  revolutionary  defiance.  Both  march  to  the  same  discordant  music,  when 
if  they  would  take  Calhoun,  Story,  or  their  own  practice  and  principles, 
only  changing  the  time  of  their  application,  they  would  find  in  the  granted 
power  to  amend  an  unlimited  authority  as  to  the  matter,  and  only  limited 
as  to  the  mode.  My  colleague  (Mr.  Pendleton)  derives,  unconsciously,  his 
language  from  the  South  Carolina  declaration  of  independence  of  Dec.  24, 
1860.  It  says : 

"  '  Observing  the  forms  of  the  Constitution,  a  sectional  party  has  found 
within  that  article  establishing  the  executive  department,  the  means  of 
subverting  the  Constitution  itself.  The  sectional  combination  for  the  sub 
version  of  the  Constitution  has  been  aided  by  the  elevation  of  the  blacks/ 

"  The  other  member  (Mr.  Ashley)  regards  the  denial  by  South  Carolina 
of  President  Lincoln  as  the  legal  President  as  the  very  essence  of  subversion, 
and  the  denial  of  franchise  to  the  blacks  as  subversive  of  republicanism.  He, 
therefore,  strikes  out  the  word  white  in  his  reconstruction  bills.  Where 
gentlemen  so  eminent  disagree  as  to  what  is  subversion,  and  what  is  change 


THE  AUTHOR'S  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  325 

or  amendment,  where  is  the  tribunal  to  decide  ?  I  answer,  in  Congress  by 
two-thirds  of  both  houses,  and  in  the  states  by  three-fourths  of  the  legisla 
tures,  and  in  the  intelligent  sovereignty  of  the  people  of  each  state  who 
have,  in  limine,  consented  to  this  mode  of  amendment." 

The  significance  of  the  conclusion  of  the  remarks  made  then  by  the 
writer,  becomes  now  apparent.  They  elucidate  what  followed  on  the  final 
passage  of  the  amendment : 

"  Speaking  for  myself,  slavery  is  to  me  the  most  repugnant  of  all  human 
institutions.  No  man  alive  should  hold  me  in  slavery  ;  and  if  it  is  my  busi 
ness,  no  man,  with  my  consent,  shall  hold  another.  Thus  I  voted  in  1851,  in 
Ohio,  with  my  party,  which  made  the  new  constitution  of  my  own  state. 
I  have  never  defended  slavery  ;  nor  has  my  party. 

44  Hence,  I  do  not  place  my  suggestions  about  this  measure  on  any  ground 
of  the  immutability  of  the  Constitution,  or  of  our  peculiar  system.  I  place 
my  vote  against  immutability,  because  the  system  it  would  change  is  a  good 
one,  made  in  wisdom,  and  to  be  perpetuated  for  the  future  happiness  of  the 
people.  If  the  system  of  internal  police  over  state  matters  is  not  of  value, 
discard  it  altogether.  Deny  to  Ohio  her  right  to  declare  who  are  born  in 
wedlock,  and  who  may  inherit  estates ;  deny  to  us  the  right  to  have  our 
home  courts  for  home  justice ;  centralize  all  power  here,  in  one  head,  and 
make  the  federation  a  despotic  tyramty.  I  may  admit  the  wrong  of  slavery. 
It  may  be  heinous  in  sight  of  God  and  man.  I  may  admit  the  power  by 
amendment  to  abolish  it.  I  am  a  radical  Democrat,  and  believe  in  amend 
ments  of  all  organic  laws  in  pursuance  of  the  mode  prescribed.  I  may 
admit  that  such  an  amendment  would  impair  only  for  a  brief  time  the  checks 
and  balances,  the  very  substance  and  essence  of  our  federative  system  ;  and 
yet  I  ask  you,  on  the  other  side,  whether,  if  I  believed  that  this  amendment 
would  place  an  impediment,  insuperable  to  the  restoration  of  the  Union,  I 
ought  to  vote  for  it  ?  If  I  believed  that  the  Richmond  authorities  would  not 
meet  us  in  convention,  and  would  stand  out  against  the  Union  on  their  inde 
pendence,  I  might  consider  anew  what  I  ought  to  do.  I  have  no  authentic 
information  in  that  regard.  So  long  as  there  is  a  faint  hope  of  a  returning 
Union,  I  will  not  place  obstacles  in  the  path.  I  will  rather  illuminate,  cheer, 
and  clear  the  pathway  to  the  old  homestead.  If  I  believed,  Mr.  Speaker, 
that  peace  could  be  restored  with  the  Union  by  the  abolition  of  slavery,  I 
would  vote  for  it.  All  I  do,  and  all  I  forbear  to  do,  is  to  save  our  imperiled 
government  and  restore  our  priceless  Union.  Show  me  that  that  will  be 
the  result,  and  I  will  vote  for  your  amendment.  But,  as  it  stands  to-day,  I 
believe  that  this  amendment  may  be  an  obstacle  to  the  rehabilitation  of  the 
states. 

"But  if  it  is  determined  in  the  South,  as  it  seems  to  be,  that  rather  than 
fail  in  independence  slavery  shall  go,  I  for  one,  as  a  Democrat,  shall  be  ready 
to  reconsider  my  resolution.  The  party  to  which  I  belong  loves  the  Union 


326  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

as  dearly  as  the  South  loves  slavery.  If  they  can  let  slavery  go  for  independ 
ence,  the  Democracy  can  let  it  go  for  the  sake  of  the  Union.  If  the  South 
should  refuse  to  meet  us  in  convention  and  abide  by  its  arbitrament,  then 
there  is  no  hope  for  slavery.  If  the  South  obtain  independence,  it  will  be 
by  freedom  to  the  slaves  and  their  enrollment  as  soldiers.  If  they  do  not 
obtain  their  independence,  then  between  the  collisions  of  the  belligerents  the 
institution  will  be  gone,  and  it  matters  little  what  becomes  of  this  amend 
ment  so  far  as  its  own  peculiar  subject  is  concerned.  So  far  as  the  Union 
slave-holding  states  are  concerned,  they  are  rendering  this  amendment  use 
less.  Missouri  on  yesterday  almost  unanimously  voted  to  abolish  slavery. 
Maryland  has  already  done  it,  whether  by  force  or  freedom  it  is  not  now  my 
purpose  to  inquire.  Kentucky  will  be  enforced  to  do  the  same.  What  re 
mains?  Little  Delaware.  She  had  in  1860,  eighteen  hundred  slaves,  and 
the  enlisting  agents  have  mostly  sold  them  out  to  this  humanitarian  gov 
ernment  for  soldiers  costing  $150  apiece  in  Delaware  and  selling  for  $1,000 
in  New -York  !  Surely  Delaware  will  soon  be  free  ! 

"  It  may  with  some  propriety  be  urged  that  slavery  is  already  dead.  It 
has  the  seeds  of  speedy  dissolution.  The  blows  of  war  are  breaking  down 
its  panting,  exhausted  body.  If,  then,  slavery  is  dead,  wha*  is  the  object  of 
this  amendment?  A  distinguished  gentleman  told  us  that,  like  Pharaoh  and 
his  hosts,  the  South  had  rushed  with  slavery  into  the  Red  Sea  of  war,  and 
that  slavery  was  destroyed.  Well,  if  that  be  the  case,  if  slavery  is  dead, 
where  is  the  necessity  for  invoking  this  extraordinary  power  of  amendment  ? 
This  amendment,  according  to  the  argument  of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side, 
amounts  to  nothing.  It  is  a  mere  brutum  fulmen.  It  is  only  the  register, 
in  other  words,  of  what  the  war  power  with  its  blows  is  accomplishing 
day  by  day.  If  gentlemen  opposite  really  believed  that  slavery  was  dead, 
they  would  not  bring  in  this  amendment.  They  do  not  believe  it.  But 
there  are  men  on  that  side  of  the  chamber  who  will  not  favor  a  restoration 
of  the  states  until  this  amendment  shall  have  become  an  organic  law. 
Therefore  it  is  that  they  pertinaciously  press  this  matter,  even  while  nego 
tiations  are  going  on  for  the  return  of  the  states  to  a  national  convention, 
and  for  the  return  of  peace  and  fraternity  among  the  states." 

At  last  the  decisive  day  approaches.  The  last  day  of  January,  1865,  is 
here.  The  House  recurs  to  the  amendment.  Speeches  are  made  pro  and 
con.  Three  Democrats  speak  for  the  amendment.  They  are  Coffroth  and 
McAllister,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Herrick,  of  New- York.  They  vote  as 
they  speak.  Messrs.  Ganson,  Odell,  Steele,  Radford,  Nelson,  and  Gris- 
wold  of  New  York,  Baldwin  of  Michigan,  King  and  Rollins  of  Missouri, 
Hutchins,  Brown  of  West  Virginia,  English  of  Connecticut,  and  Yeaman 
of  Kentucky,  also  vote  for  it.  Several  members  who  are  expected  to  vote 
for  it  are  absent,  designedly  as  it  is  alleged.  Every  Republican  is  in 
his  seat,  and  for  the  amendment.  The  roll  is  called  at  four  o'clock  in  the 


THE  VOTE  FOR  THE  THIRTEENTH   AMENDMENT.  327 

afternoon.  Mr.  Speaker  Colfax,  at  the  end  of  the  roll-call,  says,  in  ringing 
tones:  "Call  my  name  as  a  member  of  this  House!"  He  votes  "aye," 
amidst  applause.  Radford  and  Steele  change  their  votes  in  its  favor,  on  the 
final  passage.  They  are  vociferously  applauded  by  crowded  galleries.  Mem 
bers  keep  careful  tally,  and  give  intense  attention.  The  result  is  announced. 
There  are  hand-shakings,  hilarities,  and  congratulations.  Members  are 
crowded  in  the  hall  by  those  admitted  to  the  floor.  A  jubilee  revels  in  the 
chamber. 

It  was  incomprehensible  to  some,  that,  while  admitting  the  power  to 
amend,  the  author  did  not  vote  for  the  amendment.  He  had  left  himself  free 
to  vote  for  it,  in  case  its  passage  would  not  interfere  with  attempts  at  peace 
negotiation.  He  had  several  conferences  with  party  friends  with  that  object. 
He  was  anxious,  as  a  Democrat,  and  with  a  view  to  the  upbuilding  of  the 
party  he  cherished,  to  drive  this  question,  which  had  become  abstract  by  the 
death  of  slavery  through  powder  and  ball,  from  the  political  arena.  Many 
agreed  with  him  whose  votes  were  recorded  with  his  against  the  amendment. 
He  fully  intended,  when  he  came  to  the  House  at  noon  of  the  last  day  of 
January,  when  the  vote  was  taken,  to  cast  his  vote  for  it;  for  he  had  said, 
publicly  and  privately,  that  if  all  hope  of  negotiation  had  failed  and  the  South 
stood  upon  its  independence,  and  the  people  were  freeing  their  negroes  for 
soldiers,  he  would  not  stop  to  consider  further.  The  amendment  would  no 
longer  be  a  block  in  the  path  of  reconciliation  and  union.  He  had  been 
advised  by  high  officials  that  no  further  negotiations  were  possible  ;  that  so 
Mr.  Blair,  senior,  had  reported,  who  had  just  come  from  Richmond. 
But  on  arriving  at  the  House  at  half-past  twelve,  the  writer  learned  that 
commissioners  were  actually  waiting  to  be  conducted  over  the  lines.  Mr. 
Ashley  had  been  sent  to  learn  if  this  were  true.  Mr.  Ashley  inquired  of 
Mr.  Nicolay,  the  President's  private  secretary,  who  was  present  in  the  hall. 
The  latter  declared  that  he  knew  of  no  such  commission.  The  writer  begged 
Mr.  Ashley,  as  his  vote  depended  on  that  fact,  to  inquire  of  the  President. 
Mr.  Ashley  wrote  a  note,  to  which  the  President,  about  half-past  one  o'clock, 
responded  that  he  knew  "  of  no  such  commission  or  negotiation."  This  was 
signed  "A.  L."  It  was  shown  to  the  writer,  who  made  further  inquiries, 
He  was  satisfied  that  either  the  President  was  mistaken,  or  was  ignorant  of 
what  was  transpiring  at  General  Grant's  headquarters.  It  was  upon  infor 
mation  obtained  from  other  than  official  sources  that  the  writer  voted.  It 
proved  to  be  correct  information ;  for  it  afterward  appeared  that  the  com 
missioners  were  in  front  of  our  army  on  Sunday  afternoon.  This  was  two 
days  before  the  amendment  came  up  for  action,  which  was  on  Tuesday. 
They  were  delayed  two  days  exactly,  because  of  the  absence  of  General 
Grant  at  Wilmington.  He  arrived  on  Tuesday,  and  forthwith  dispatched  a 
messenger  to  Wilmington  with  the  information  as  to  the  nature  of  the  com 
munication  they  wished  to  make.  These  facts  show  that  the  President,  Mr. 


328  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Nicolay,  and  General  Ashley  were  correct  in  advising  the  writer  as  to  their 
ignorance  of  the  presence  of  the  commissioners  at  headquarters  on  Tuesday 
noon.  In  some  inscrutable  way  there  were  men  in  Congress  who  were 
better  advised  as  to  their  presence  than  Mr.  Ashley  or  the  President.  Upon 
fair  assurance  the  vote  of  the  writer  was  withheld  from  the  affirmative.  He 
believed  it  to  be  then  perilous  to  peace  to  pass  the  amendment.  It  would 
have  been  an  impediment  to  negotiations.  It  was  an  obstacle,  as  it  turned 
out,  notwithstanding  Mr.  Seward's  belief  that  it  was  an  aid.  Whether  the 
author's  vote  was  correct  or  not,  it  was  given  upon  the  belief  that,  in  the 
negotiations  then  about  to  be  begun  at  once,  this  amendment  would  prove 
an  obstacle  to  peace  and  union.  Weighing  in  one  scale  the  dead  body  of 
slavery,  which  was  to  be  formally  abolished  by  this  amendment ;  and  in  the 
other,  peace  and  union, —  and  these  latter  without  slavery, —  how  could  he 
doubt  the  unwisdom  of  an  amendment  which  would  postpone  peace  and 
imperil  the  Union?  But  the  speech  below  quoted,  which  was  matured 
in  advance  of  these  hurrying  events,  is  the  test  by  which  the  author's 
motive  and  judgment  are  to  be  tried.  It  was  not  delivered ;  and  it  never 
saw  print  before  its  appearance  on  this  page  ! 

"Mr.  SPEAKER:  Some  weeks  since,  I  appealed  to  the  other  side  to 
make  efforts  for  peace  ;  and  I  said  then  that  I  would  consider  this  amendment 
under  new  lights.  I  then  said,  that  if  Jefferson  Davis  would  refuse  to 
confer  on  the  basis  of  the  unamended  Constitution,  I  would  reconsider  my 
views.  I  urged,  personally,  the  President  upon  this  point.  The  Blair  mis 
sion  was  an  honest  effort  for  peace.  Of  all  things,  that  was  most  desirable, — 
with  union.  Again,  on  the  I2th  inst.,  I  discussed  the  power  of  amendment, 
and  found  no  objection  except  to  its  exercise  then.  All  that  I  did,  or  forbore 
to  do,  was  for  the  Union.  If  the  South  stands  on  independence,  I  will  vote 
this  amendment.  The  party  I  belong  to  loves  the  Union  as  well  as  the 
South  loves  slavery.  If  the  South  could  discard  it  for  independence,  I  can  for 
the  Union.  This  was  my  view  before  negotiations.  They  are  ended.  The 
ultimatum  came  in  writing.  I  knew  just  what  the  negotiations  were  and  how 
they  ended.  'Separation,  recognition.  We  will  treat  on  no  other  basis.' 
They  are  again  preparing  for  war.  They  still  defy  us.  If  they  obtain  their 
independence,  this  amendment  will  affect  nothing  but  the  North  and  the  ad 
hering  border  states.  All  the  adhering  slave  states,  save  Kentucky,  are  now 
free  states.  I  have  here  a  letter  from  Mr.  James  Guthrie,  of  Kentucky. 
It  states  that  though  Kentucky  does  not  wish  to  abolish  slavery  herself,  she 
would  be  glad  to  have  the  ship  clear  of  the  wreck.  4  The  scars  which  are 
to  be  made  in  the  Constitution  on  the  road  to  peace  and  reunion  are  not  of 
our  making,  but  find  their  apology  in  the  evils  and  necessities  of  the  times.' 
These  are  his  words.  If  the  South  wish  to  defeat  this  amendment,  they  can 
come  back  in  two  years  and  kill  it  in  the  states.  If  they  do  not  come  back, 
it  is  of  no  consequence.  If  they  do  come  back,  war  will  have  already  de- 


EXPLANATION   OF  THE  AUTHOR'S  VOTE.  329 

stroyed  slavery.  In  a  party  light,  slavery  was  not  mentioned  at  Chicago  in 
the  platform.  It  will  not  be  a  question  of  party  fidelity  or  obligation.  We 
will  carry  no  more  wrongful  odium  for  slavery  into  our  campaigns.  "We 
will  have  no  more  defeats.  I  am  instructed  by  my  state  [Ohio]  to  vote  for 
this  amendment.  My  district  is  for  it.  I  will  take  the  responsibility,  after  all 
efforts  for  peace  and  union  fail,  to  rid  the  party  of  these  questions  as  to  man 
hood  and  bondage,  and  assist  to  turn  the  issues  upon  finance,  tariffs,  foreign 
affairs,  and  personal  liberty.  I  will  cheerfully  take  reproach  from  those  who 
in  one  breath  hold  the  Constitution  to  be  an  indenture  of  partnership,  to  be 
broken  by  any  party  to  it,  and  in  the  next  say  it  is  so  binding  as  to  be  im 
mutable.  Differing  from  such,  I  will  vote  to  thrust  the  question  of  slavery 
from  politics  and  Congress  forever." 

In  striving  to  stay  hostilities  and  prevent  butchery,  the  author  uncon 
sciously  saved  his  personal  probity  from  undeserved  reproach.  This  is  the 
incident :  He  was  boarding  at  the  house  of  an  active  radical  Republican 
who  had  been  on  General  Fremont's  staff.  This  man  had  heard  read  the 
speech  above  quoted.  He  inferred  correctly  its  bias  for  the  amend 
ment.  The  writer  had  spoken,  in  confidence,  about  the  table  and  under 
the  roof  of  this  landlord  of  his  intention  to  vote  for  the  amendment.  One 
vote  was  then  most  momentous  to  make  the  requisite  two-thirds.  This 
ex-soldier  of  fortune  counted,  in  a  mercenary  way,  on  improving  his  purse 
by  his  confidential  information.  When  the  writer  returned  to  his  Tuesday 
dinner,  having  given  under  the  circumstances  an  adverse  vote,  the  irascible 
radical  broke  forth  into  such  a  torrent  of  abuse  against  the  writer,  that  the 
latter  left  the  table  in  disgust  and  bewilderment.  The  abuser  in  his  wrath 
averred  —  what  he  afterwards,  when  stricken  with  blindness  and  repentant, 
directed  his  good  wife  to  asseverate  in  writing  —  that  he  was  to  get  ten  thou 
sand  dollars  from  New -York  parties  for  influencing  the  writer's  vote  favor 
ably  to  the  amendment.  The  writer  discovered  the  party  who  raised  the 
fund  which  was  said  to  be  ready  and  freely  used  for  corrupting  members. 
Can  anything  be  conceived  more  monstrous  than  this  attempt  to  amend  the 
Constitution  upon  such  a  humane  and  glorious  theme,  by  the  aid  of  the 
lucre  of  office-holders  ?  This  statement  was  made  in  Congress  after  the  war, 
in  response  to  Mr.  Dawes,  and  with  much  detail.  It  was  never  challenged. 
It  is  true. 

The  amendment  required  for  its  ratification  twenty-seven  of  the  thirty- 
six  states.  There  were  enough  in  the  Union.  They  were  "  loyal"  enough 
to  carry  it.  Its  ratification  began  in  Maine,  on  the  ^th  of  February,  with  the 
firing  of  a  hundred  guns.  It  ended,  not  without  much  adverse  criticism  on 
the  compulsory  measures  resorted  to  for  its  ratification,  when  the  Secretary 
of  State  announced  the  result  in  a  formal  statement  to  Congress.  Although 
there  was  much  questioning  as  to  whether  the  President's  proclamation 
abolishing  slavery  would  be  valid,  —  much  questioning  North  and  South, — 

21 


330  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

no  one  questioned  any  longer  the  power  of  Congress  to  submit  the  amend 
ment  in  the  form  of  the  Senate  proposition. 

Whether  the  consultation   had   by  Mr.  Stuart  and  the  author  with  the 
President  during  the  holidays  had,  or  had  not,  impressed  the  latter  so  as  to 
energize  a  movement  for  peace,  it  is  certain  that  upon  New  Year's  Day  it 
was  bruited  about  Washington  that  Frank  P.  Blair,  Sr.,  and  his  son,  Mont 
gomery  Blair,  had  gone  to  City  Point  upon  a  mission  of  peace.     It  was  al 
leged  that  they  had  gone  there  to  meet  the  representatives  of  the  Confed 
erate  Government.     The  truth,  as  it  transpired  afterwards,  was  that  the  elder 
Mr.  Blair  had  gone  to  Richmond  to  see  his  old  friend,  Jefferson  Davis ;  for 
what  purpose,  the  sequel  will  develop.     When  Mr.  Blair  went  on  his  mis 
sion  he  was  denounced  at  Richmond  as  a  spy.     It  was  said  that  he  deserved 
hanging.     It  was  charged  that  he  had  sinister  designs,  and  that  he  wished  to 
break  up  the  Confederacy  by  intrigue.     He  arrived  at  Richmond  on  Wednes 
day  evening,  January  nth.     General  Singleton,  of  Illinois,  an  ultra-peace 
Democrat  of  pronounced  views,  also  had  safe  conduct  to  Richmond.     At  the 
same  time  Mr.  Stanton  was  on  his  way  to  Savannah  with  less  of  healing  on 
his  wings.     But  it  was  not  known  that  either  General  Singleton  or  Mr.  Blair 
was  clothed  with  powers  to  conclude  negotiations  or  bind  the  Federal  Govern 
ment.     It  was  only  hoped  that  by  conference  with  the  leaders  South,   the 
war  might  be  ended  by  future  negotiations.     Mr.  Blair  returned  to  the  Fed 
eral  capital  on  the  i6th  of  January.     His  mission  was  given  out  as  one  of  a 
private  nature.     He  was,  as  it  was  alleged,  looking  after  the  title-deeds  of  cer 
tain  property.     But  it  was  said  by  the  Richmond  journals  that  he  only  came 
to  see  the  cards  in  the  Confederate  hands.     Montgomery  Blair  did  not  accom 
pany  his  father  any  further  than  City  Point.     There  is  no  room  for  doubt  as 
to  the  business  the  father  had  in  charge.     The  authentic  account  of  the  inter 
view  is  published  in  Jefferson  Davis'  second  volume.     This  paper  is  labeled 
a  "  Memorandum  of  a  Confidential  Conversation  held  this  day  with  F.  P. 
Blair,  of  Montgomery  County,  Maryland."     It  is  dated  "Richmond,  Vir 
ginia,  January  I2th,  1865."     After  reciting  some  immaterial  matters  about 
obtaining  permission  from  Mr.  Lincoln  to  visit  Richmond,  and  that  he  was 
a  man  of  Southern  blood  and  felt  anxious  to  see  the  war  between  the  states 
terminated,  Mr.  Blair  stated  to  Mr.  Davis  that  he  had-  two  appointments  to 
converse  with  Mr.  Lincoln  about  the  object  of  his  visit  to  Richmond.     On 
each  occasion  he  was  disappointed.     He  concluded  that  Mr.  Lincoln  avoided 
the  interview.     Therefore,  he  came  not  only  without  credentials,  but  with 
out  instructions   from   Mr.  Lincoln.     His  views,  therefore,  were  his  own. 
"Perhaps,"  he  said,  "they  are  merely   the  dreams  of  an  old  man."     He 
asked  permission  to  read  the  rough  draft  of  a  letter  which  he  had  prepared. 
"  I  allowed  him  to  read  it  without  comment  on  my  part,"  says  Mr.  Davis. 
"  When  he  had  finished  as  to  his  main  proposition,  the  cessation  of  hostilities 
and  the  union  of  the  military  forces  for  the  common  purpose  of  maintaining 


F.  P.  BLAIR,  SR.,  AND  JEFFERSON  DAVIS.  331 

*  the  Monroe  Doctrine/  he  said  that  both  the  political  parties  of  the  United 
States  asserted  the  Monroe  doctrine  as  a  cardinal  point  of  their  creed,  and 
that  there  was  a  general  desire  to  apply  it  to  the  case  of  Mexico."  For  that 
purpose  a  secret  treaty  might  be  made.  After  referring  to  the  attempt  to 
negotiate,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Davis,  and  its  failure  heretofore,  Mr.  Blair  ex 
pressed  the  belief  that  Mr.  Lincoln  would  not  receive  commissioners.  He 
proposed  to  return  to  Washington  to  explain  his  project  to  Mr.  Lincoln.  He 
affirmed  that  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  sympathize  with  the  radical  men  who  de 
sired  the  devastation  and  subjugation  of  the  Southern  States,  but  that  he  was 
unable  to  control  the  extremes  of  his  party,  which  now  had  great  power  in 
Congress,  and  would  at  the  next  session  have  still  more.  He  avowed  an 
earnest  desire  to  stop  the  further  effusion  of  blood,  as  one  whose  every 
drop  of  blood  was  Southern.  He  expressed  the  hope  that  the  pride  of  power 
and  the  honor  of  the  Southern  States  should  suffer  no  shock.  He  looked  to 
the  extension  of  Southern  territory  even  to  the  Isthmus  of  Darien.  He  reit 
erated  the  idea  of  state  sovereignty,  with  illustrations.  After  other  conver 
sations,  detailed  at  length  in  this  memorandum,  the  conference  ended.  It 
had  no  other  result  than  an  agreement  that  Mr.  Blair  would  learn  whether 
Mr.  Lincoln  would  adopt  his  project,  and  send,  or  receive  commissioners 
to  negotiate  for  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  questions  at  issue.  He  would 
report  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  Mr.  Davis'  readiness  to  enter  upon  negotiations,  and 
that  there  was  no  insurmountable  obstacle  to  such  a  treaty  of  peace  as  would 
secure  greater  advantage  to1  both  parties  than  any  result  which  the  existing 
conflict  of  arms  could  achieve. 

Mr.  Blair  confirmed  this  memorandum  as  verity.  Mr.  Davis  expressed 
his  willingness  to  enter  into  negotiations  for  the  restoration  of  peace,  and  his 
readiness  to  send  a  commission  when  he  had  reason  to  suppose  it  would  be 
received,  or  to  receive  a  commission  from  the  United  States  Government  if 
they  should  choose  to  send  one.  But  he  was  very  guarded  in  his  statements, 
as  will  appear  by  the  expression  —  that  he  would  ' '  thus  renew  the  effort  to 
enter  into  conference,  with  a  view  to  secure  peace  to  the  two  countries." 
Mr.  Lincoln,  on  the  i8th  of  January,  wrote  to  Mr.  Blair  that  he  had  seen 
Mr.  Davis'  letter  to  him,  and  that  he  might  say  to  him  that  he  had  constantly 
been,  and  was  now,  and  should  continue  —  to  quote  the  words  —  "  ready  to 
receive  any  agent  whom  Mr.  Davis,  or  any  other  influential  person  now 
resisting  the  national  authority,  may  informally  send  to  me  with  a  view  to 
securing  a  peace  to  the  people  of  our  own  common  country."  It  will  be 
observed  that,  like  special  pleading,  the  issue  was  clearly  made.  Mr.  Lin 
coln  puts  himself  upon  one  country,  and  Mr.  Davis  upon  two  countries. 

A  suggestion  was  made  that  Generals  Lee  and  Grant  might  enter  into  an 
arrangement  by  which  hostilities  would  be  suspended  and  a  way  paved  for 
peace.  Mr.  Davis  has  said  that  he  acquiesced  in  such  a  negotiation.  The 


332  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

conference  ended  and  Mr.  Blair  returned  to  Washington.      The  military  con 
vention  idea  was  not  favorably  received  at  Washington. 

Again,  on  the  2Oth  of  January,  Mr.  Blair  made  another  visit  to  Rich 
mond.  He  embarked  on  a  United  States  steamer  from  the  navy  yard.  Be 
fore  his  return  the  Confederate  President  was  called  upon  to  explain  his 
view  of  negotiations  for  peace.  He  ridiculed  the  idea  of  treating  with 
states  like  Louisiana,  Tennessee,  Kentucky  or  Missouri,  which  were  in  and 
out  of  the  Union.  "Would  delegates  be  received  from  both  sides?"  he 
asked.  "  What  of  West  Virginia?  Would  Virginia  enter  into  a  conven 
tion  with  West  Virginia  ?  "  These  were  puzzling  problems. 

The  radicals  in  Congress  began  a  crusade  against  the  effort  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  for  peace,  and  the  mission  of  the  senior  Mr.  Blair.  Resolutions 
were  introduced  denouncing  negotiations,  and  demanding  war  to  the  end. 
Senator  Harlan  and  others  led  those  fierce  radicals.  They  even  demanded 
retaliation  instead  of  conciliation.  They  desired  no  peace  until  the  condi 
tions  were  fixed.  These  included  the  abolition  of  slavery  by  an  amend 
ment  of  the  Constitution.  The  writer  recalls  the  wild  rumors  then  preva 
lent  about  closing  the  war.  It  was  said  that  Mr.  Seward  was  at  the 
bottom  of  it  all.  Stories  were  current  about  Mr.  Blair's  reception  by  Mr. 
Davis,  and  by  Mrs.  Davis  —  with  a  kiss.  Another  rumor  was,  that  Mr. 
Blair  brought  back  from  Mr.  Davis  a  communication  for  Mr.  Lincoln  ask 
ing  for  commissioners  representing  "two  countries."  This  was  near  the 
truth.  The  writer  distinctly  rememfoers  that,  inasmuch  as  he  had  urged 
President  Lincoln  to  reach  out  the  hand  of  amity,  he  inquired  of  the 
President  and  of  Mr.  Seward  as  to  the  result  of  the  Blair  mission.  He 
was  distinctly  informed  by  both  that  Mr.  Davis  refused  to  treat  unless  his 
government  was  recognized  as  an  independent  nation.  To  this  Mr.  Lin 
coln  and  Mr.  Seward  would  not  listen  for  a  moment.  It  was  given  out 
in  Richmond,  on  Mr.  Blair's  second  mission,  that  the  enemy  were  willing 
to  permit  the  Confederates  to  dictate  their  own  terms,  "provided  only,  we 
will  not  dissolve  the  Union."  The  truth  is,  Mr.  Blair  found  great  confusion 
in  Richmond.  Although  the  mission  failed  in  results  then,  it  brought  forth 
fruit  afterwards.  Without  an  armistice  and  a  recognition  of  independence,  Mr. 
Davis  could  not  take  the  responsibility  of  initiating  proceedings  to  end  the 
war.  Many  who  wished  the  trial  made  were  now  satisfied,  although  the 
failure  was  disappointing. 

It  was  alleged  that  Mr.  Blair's  was  a  partisan  mission  ;  that  he  desired  to 
strengthen  the  Republican  party  by  demonstrating  the  truculent  and  hopeless 
recusancy  of  the  Confederate  President  and  his  friends  ;  and  that  by  its  fail 
ure,  President  Lincoln  would  know  how  to  point  and  paragraph  his  In 
augural.  The  opinion  of  the  writer  is  that  the  mission  was  meant  in  good 
faith  ;  and  that  while  it  was  intended  to  induce  members  like  himself  to  vote 
for  the  Thirteenth  Amendment,  when  it  was  seen  that  there  was  no  hope 


THE  CONFERENCE  AT  FORTRESS  MONROE.  333 

after  a  fair  effort  for  peace,  it  was  no  less  a  legitimate  and  honest  endeavor. 
So  history  should  record  it. 

Horace  Greeley  was  instrumental  in  hastening  this  advent  of  Mr.  Blair 
upon  Virginia.  His  paper  was  not  uncandid  when  it  said  that  the  visit 
would  give  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  differences  North  and  South,  and 
of  the  reasons  or  the  ends  for  which  further  bloodshed  might  be  deemed 
necessary.  It  was  no  idle  rumor  which  said  that  President  Lincoln  would 
propose,  through  the  elder  Blair,  to  Jefferson  Davis  and  his  followers,  an 
exit  over  the  Mexican  frontier.  Once  over  as  armed  emigrants,  they  were 
to  be  furnished  with  the  necessary  means  for  a  permanent  lodgment.  There 
they  could  erect  a  splendid  government  upon  the  ruins  of  the  cause  of  the 
imperial  puppet  of  France  —  Maximilian.  There  they  could  vindicate  the 
Monroe  doctrine  and  revel  in  a  confederacy  all  their  own.  Such  were  the 
phantoms  born  of  war  and  its  disasters. 

In  pursuance  of  the  understanding  between   Mr.   Blair   and    Jefferson 
Davis,  Messrs.  Alexander  H.   Stephens,  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter,  and  John 
A.  Campbell  were  accredited,  with  a  certificate  of  appointment,  as  commis 
sioners  to  proceed  to  Washington  for  conference  upon  the  subject  to  which 
it  related  ;  or  rather  for  an  informal  conference  with  President  Lincoln  upon 
the  issues  involved  in  the  existing  war,  and  for  the  purpose  of  securing  peace 
to  the  "  two  countries."     Upon  the  2d  of  February,   1865,  they  arrive  at 
Fortress  Monroe    upon    General  Grant's    flag-boat,    the    M.    Martin.      It 
anchors   near  the    River  Queen,   on  which    is    Secretary    Seward.       The 
commissioners    are    treated   with  marked   courtesy.       They  dine  with  the 
Secretary  on  board  his  vessel.     The  fastest  boat   of  the  bay,  the  Thomas 
Collyer,  arrives  at  Old  Point  Comfort  at  ten  o'clock  that  night.     It  has  made 
the  fastest  run  on  record,  although  the  weather  is  severe  and  the  bay  full  of  ice. 
It  has  on  board  no  less  a  personage  than  President  Lincoln.      He  advises  the 
Secretary  of  his  presence.     The  parties  do  not  land.     Steam  on  water  was 
weaving  an  interchange  of  civilities  and  duties  in  this  supreme  hour.     The 
parties  meet  the  next  day  on  board  the  River  Queen.     Students  may  be  re 
minded  by  this  incident,  of  the  romantic  interview  upon  a  raft  in  the  river 
Nieman,  between  the  great  Napoleon  and  the  Czar  Alexander,  to  open  ne 
gotiations  for  peace  after  the  long  war  between  Prussia,  Russia,  and  France. 
On  what  do  these  Federal  and  Confederate  dignitaries  confer?     All  the 
vexed  questions,  emancipation,  amnesty,  debt,  finance,  and  the  Monroe  doc 
trine  are  under  discussion.     Great  hopes  are  excited  that  the  preliminaries 
of  peace  have  been  agreed  upon.      Gold  drops  down  to  202.      The  ulti 
matum  is  delivered  to  the  commissioners.     They  leave  for  Richmond.     The 
next  day  the  Cabinet  at  Washington  meets.     The  President  opens  his  budget. 
All  approve  of  his  propositions.      They  approve  of  the  simplicity  and  lack 
of  punctilio  which  characterized  the  conference.    They  look  to  the  great  end. 
All  minor  questions  have  been  subordinated  by  the  clement  President  to  stop 
bloodshed,  and  only  the  main  topics  are  uppermost  in  his  thoughts. 


334  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Mr.  Seward  had  proposed  that  the  conference  should  be  confidential. 
This  calls  for  an  objurgatory  paragraph  from  Mr.  Davis  in  his  published  nar 
ration  of  the  affair.  Mr.  Davis  thinks  that  the  views  of  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
changed  after  he  wrote  the  letter  of  June  i8th  to  Mr.  Blair.  This  change 
he  attributes  to  what  Mr.  Blair  heard  and  saw  at  Richmond.  What  he  saw 
and  heard  involved  a  conflict  in  the  very  heart  of  the  Confederate  councils. 
The  report  of  the  commissioners  to  the  President  of  the  Confederate  States 
was  dated  on  the  5th  of  February,  1865.  It  says  nothing  that,  apparently, 
changed  the  course  of  events  or  the  previous  state  of  affairs.  It  affirms  that 
the  commissioners  understood  from  President  Lincoln  that  no  terms  or  pro 
posals  of  any  treaty  looking  to  an  ultimate  settlement  would  be  entertained 
or  made  by  him  with  the  authorities  of  the  Confederate  States.  To  treat 
with  the  latter  would  be  a  recognition  of  their  existence  as  a  separate  power. 
Under  no  circumstances  would  he  permit  this.  For  a  like  reason,  no  such 
terms  would  be  entertained  by  him  for  the  states  separately.  No  extended 
truce  or  armistice  would  be  granted  without  a  satisfactory  assurance,  in  ad 
vance,  of  the  complete  restoration  of  the  authority  of  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  United  States  over  all  the  places  within  the  states  of  the  Confed 
eracy.  All  the  consequences  which  would  follow  the  re-establishment  of  that 
authority  must  be  accepted.  Mr.  Stephens  had  previously  intimated  that  a 
surrender  was  not  thought  of.  He  said  to  Mr.  Lincoln  that  his  colleagues 
and  himself  had  no  power  for  their  own  abdication.  u  Your  proposition," 
then  said  Mr.  Lincoln,  "  is  for  independence.  Mine  for  submission.  We 
cannot  agree." 

In  this  report,  the  commissioners  plainly  indicate  that  the  President  had 
his  mind  fixed,  without  malice  toward  any  and  with  charity  for  all.  He 
proposed  if  peace  were  restored,  a  liberal  use  of  the  power  confided  to  him, 
to  remit  pains  and  penalties.  During  the  conference  a  significant  reference 
was  made  to  the  3 1  st  of  January  and  the  passage  of  the  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment.  The  result  of  the  conference  was  that  there  could  be  no  arrangements 
as  the  parties  were  then  situated. 

The  comment,  by  those  who  looked  at  matters  in  a  sinister  way,  upon 
these  remarkable  meetings  of  the  elder  Blair  with  Jefferson  Davis  and  the 
commissioners  with  Lincoln  and  Seward  was,  —  that  Mr.  Blair  was  a  scout, 
and  the  Hampton  Roads  conference  an  official  reconnoissance.  If  such  had 
been  the  object  it  was  successful ;  but  the  conferences  were,  undoubtedly, 
intended  to  lead  in  good  faith  toward  the  cessation  of  hostilities  and  the 
restoration  of  the  Union.  What  the  commissioners  sought  they  did  not 
get — an  armistice  and  recognition.  What  the  President  sought  he  did  not 
get — immediate  submission.  The  reports  of  the  respective  Presidents  show 
that  negotiations  were  impossible  on  any  other  "  terms,"  as  Mr.  Davis 
phrased  it,  "than  those  which  the  conqueror  may  grant." 

Mr.  Seward,  in  writing  to  Mr.  Adams,  Minister  at  London,  under  date 


THE  MEXICAN  DREAM.  335 

of  Feb.  9,  1865,  states  that  the  conference  lasted  four  hours,  and  that  all 
points  of  difference  were  discussed  amicably.  Then  he  adds  this  significant 
sentence  :  "  What  the  insurgent  party  seemed  chiefly  to  favor,  was  a  post 
ponement  of  the  question  of  separation,  and  a  mutual  direction  of  both  sides 
to  some  extrinsic  policy  or  scheme,  for  a  season,  during  which  passions 
might  be  expected  to  subside  and  the  armies  be  reduced,  and  intercourse  be 
tween  the  people  of  both  sections  be  resumed."  It  is  no  part  of  this  narra 
tive  to  discuss  what  might  have  happened  had  this  extrinsic  proposition  as 
to  Maximilian,  which  first  emanated  from  Mr.  Blair  and  was  now  pro 
pounded  by  these  commissioners,  been  adopted.  Fancy  plays  with  suppo 
sititious  situations.  The  verities  discard  them  as  "stuff  that  dreams  are 
made  of." 

Upon  the  6th  of  February,  1865,  the  writer  offered  a  resolution  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  stating  that  the  gratitude  of  a  suffering  and  dis 
tracted  country  was  due  to  the  President  for  endeavoring,  with  a  view  to 
negotiations  for  peace  and  the  restoration  of  the  Union,  to  ascertain  the  dis 
position  of  the  insurgents ;  and  that  with  a  similar  view  he  be  respectfully 
requested  to  omit  no  honorable  exertions  thereafter  which  might  lead  to  the 
desired  object,  to  wit,  peace  and  union.  Against  this  humane  testimony  for 
the  American  people,  thirty-one  Republicans  in  Congress  assembled,  voted, 
while  one  hundred  and  five  of  all  parties  voted  in  favor  of  it.  This  resolution 
greatly  disturbed  the  extremists.  Still,  only  one-third  of  that  party  opposed 
the  resolution  on  the  vote  ;  but  in  private  they  were  furious  in  their  opposi 
tion  to  any  effort  toward  peace  except  through  war.  The  writer  was  sur 
prised  that  such  leaders  as  Henry  Winter  Davis,  Governor  Frank  Thomas, 
of  Maryland,  Windom,  of  Minnesota,  Wadsworth,  of  Kentucky,  Morrill, 
of  Vermont,  Dawes,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Allison,  of  Iowa,  should  have 
opposed  a  tribute  to  their  own  President  for  such  an  exercise  of  his  preroga 
tive  ;  but  he  was  not  surprised  when  Thaddeus  Stevens  led  his  small  phalanx 
in  opposition,  among  whom  were  found  two  ultra  Democrats  who  disliked 
the  President  so  much  that  they  would  not  seek  even  the  ways  of  peace  and 
pleasantness  at  his  hands.  These  were  Rogers,  of  New  Jersey,  and  Long, 
of  Ohio. 

One  result  of  these  conferences,  or  rather  of  their  failure,  was  to  give 
fresh  impulse  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  six  hundred  millions  of  dollars. 
Another  result,  running  to  extremes,  was  a  measure  which  the  writer  de 
feated,  and  which  had  in  a  former  session  been  vetoed,  concerning  the 
"forfeiture  of  real  property  owned  by  rebels,"  so  as  to  confiscate  the  fee 
simple  beyond  the  natural  lives  of  the  owners.  On  the  motion  to  lay  this  bill 
on  the  table,  the  yeas  were  72,  the  nays  71.  What  a  rich  fund  of  attorney 
fees,  what  a  wrangle  of  litigation,  was  thus  avoided  by  adhering  to  the  Con 
stitution  in  reference  to  attainder  and  confiscation  and  corruption  of  blood. 

In  other  respects  the  Union  cause  was  the  gainer  by  the  Hampton  Roads 


336  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

transaction,  while  the  Confederates  were  the  losers  through  distraction  in 
council  and  discouragement  everywhere.  The  duty  prescribed  now  for  the 
North  was  to  conquer  a  peace,  since  peace  could  not  be  gained  by  treaty. 
The  North  aroused  itself  to  give  a  finishing  blow  to  its  brave  but  now  stag 
gering  opponents. 

On  the  loth  of  January,  1865,  a  debate  was  sprung  upon  the  House  in 
regard  to  these  peace  negotiations.  It  was  opened  by  James  Brooks,  of  New- 
York.  He  favored  an  armistice.  He  vigorously  assaulted  the  President's 
action.  Thaddeus  Stevens  answered  in  a  fierce  onslaught  on  Jefferson 
Davis,  and  the  position  which  he  assumed  for  the  Confederate  Government 
as  an  independent  state.  The  saturnine  Pennsylvania!!  had  forgotten  that 
he  had  by  his  own  speeches  and  action  regarded  the  Confederacy  as  an 
independent  power.  The  writer  answered  both  speeches  as  extreme  opin 
ions.  He  defended  the  meeting  at  Hampton  Roads.  He  asserted  that  if  it 
were  followed  up  it  would  lead  to  peace  and  reunion.  He  quoted  General 
Grant's  statement,  that  he  (the  General)  was  convinced,  by  conversations 
with  Messrs.  Stephens  and  Hunter,  that  their  intentions  were  good,  and  that 
their  desire  to  restore  peace  and  union  was  sincere.  "  If  we  fail,"  said  the 
author  in  conclusion,  "  to  make  peace,  the  fault  will  lie  at  the  door  of  the 
radicals."  The  war  fiercely  continued  to  do  its  bloody  work  until  April  19, 
1865.  Then  peace  was  gained.  It  was  contained  in  this  simple  proposition 
of  General  Grant : 

4 'By  the  South  laying  down  their  arms,  they  will  hasten  that  most  de 
sirable  event,  save  thousands  of  human  lives,  and  hundreds  of  millions  of 
property  not  yet  destroyed."  General  Sherman,  a  short  time  afterward, 
made  the  same  terms  with  General  Johnston  for  the  clisbandment  of  the 
army  of  the  latter,  which  were  given  to  Lee  at  Appomattox.  Thus  ended 
the  most  momentous  war  known  to  history. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  POLICY  OF  RECONSTRUCTION. 

THE  AMNESTY  PROCLAMATION  —  THE  OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE  — THE  CONDITIONS 
OF  PARDON— THE  EXCEPTED  CLASSES  —  RECONSTRUCTION  BILL  IN  THE 
HOUSE  —  MILITARY  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNORS  —  THE  QUALIFICATION  OF 
VOTERS  — ELECTION  OF  MEMBERS  OF  CONGRESS  —  SENATE  AMENDMENTS 
REJECTED  -  THE  BILL  PASSES  CONGRESS  —  IT  FAILS  TO  BE  SIGNED  BY  THE 
PRESIDENT  —  ITS  POLICY  ADOPTED  BY  HIM  —  CRITICISMS  OF  HIS  PARTY  — 
MR.  LINCOLN'S  MODERATE  VIEWS  — NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  PROPOSED  —  EXTREME 
MEASURES  DEVELOPING  — AUTHOR'S  ESTIMATE  OF  LINCOLN. 

IN  his  annual  message,  dated  Dec.  8,  1863,  President  Lincoln  gives  at 
length  his  reasons  for  issuing  the  Amnesty  proclamation  of  the  same 
day.  The  latter  offers  terms  of  reconciliation  and  a  restoration  of  po 
litical  rights  and  relations  under  the  government  to  the  people  of  the 
Confederate  States.  The  policy  is  for  a  general  amnesty  with  some  ex 
ceptions.  The  preamble  to  the  proclamation  recites  the  clause  in  the  Consti 
tution  which  provides  that  the  President  u  shall  have  power  to  grant  reprieves 
and  pardons  for  offenses  against  the  United  States,  except  in  cases  of  im 
peachment."  Reference  is  made  to  the  acts  of  Congress  declaring  forfeitures 
and  confiscations  of  property  and  the  liberation  of  slaves.  The  President 
then  grants  the  amnesty  and  pardon  in  these  words  :  "  Therefore,  I,  Abraham 
Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States,  do  proclaim,  declare,  and  make 
known  to  all  persons  who  have  directly,  or  by  implication,  participated  in 
the  existing  rebellion,  except  as  hereinafter  excepted,  that  a  full  pardon  is 
hereby  granted  to  them,  and  each  of  them,  with  restoration  of  all  rights  of 
property,  except  as  to  slaves,  and  in  property  cases  where  rights  of  third 
parties  shall  have  intervened,  and  upon  the  condition  that  every  such  person 
shall  take  and  subscribe  an  oath,  and  thenceforward  keep  and  maintain  said 
oath  inviolate  ;  and  which  oath  shall  be  registered  for  permanent  preserva 
tion,  and  shall  be  of  the  tenor  and  effect  following,  to  wit : 


338  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

"I, ,  do  solemnly  swear,  in  presence  of  Almighty  God, 

that  I  will  henceforth  faithfully  support,  protect,  and  defend  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  and  the  union  of  the  states  thereunder ;  and  that 
I  will,  in  like  manner,  abide  by  and  faithfully  support  all  acts  of  Congress 
passed  during  the  existing  rebellion  with  reference  to  slaves,  so  long  and  so 
far  as  not  repealed,  modified,  or  held  void  by  Congress,  or  by  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court ;  and  that  I  will,  in  like  manner,  abide  by  and  faithfully 
support  all  proclamations  made  by  the  President  during  the  existing  rebellion 
having  reference  to  slaves,  so  long  and  so  far  as  not  modified  or  declared 
void  by  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  so  help  me  God." 

The  persons  first  excepted  from  the  privileges  of  amnesty  under  this  pro 
clamation  are  :  all  those  who  left  judicial  stations,  or  seats  in  Congress,  or  the 
army  or  navy  of  the  United  States,  to  take  part  in  the  rebellion.  Further 
exceptions  are  :  all  army  and  navy  officers  in  the  service  of  the  Confederacy 
above  the  grade  of  colonel  in  the  army  or  lieutenant  in  the  navy,  and  all,  of 
whatever  grade,  who  maltreated  colored  or  white  prisoners  of  war.  The  con 
ditions  of  amnesty  were  those  which,  under  the  act  of  Congress,  the  President 
was  authorized  to  impose.  They  were  deemed  essential  to  the  restoration 
of  peace  and  union.  Under  the  conditions  of  this  proclamation,  Mr.  Lin 
coln  sets  forth  his  mode  of  reconstruction  in  these  words :  ^  Whenever, 
in  any  of  the  eleven  states  in  rebellion,  a  number  of  persons  not  less 
than  one-tenth  of  the  number  of  votes  cast  in  such  state  at  the  Presidential 
election  of  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty,  each 
having  taken  the  oath  aforesaid,  and  not  having  since  violated  it,  and  being 
a  qualified  voter  by  the  election  law  of  the  state  existing  immediately  before 
the  so-called  act  of  secession,  and  excluding  all  others,  shall  re-establish  a 
state  government,  which  shall  be  republican,  and  in  no  wise  contravening 
said  oath,  such  shall  be  recognized  as  the  true  government  of  the  state,  and 
the  state  shall  receive  thereunder  the  benefits  of  the  constitutional  provision 
which  declares  that  '  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  state  in  this 
Union  a  republican  form  of  government,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them 
against  invasion ;  and,  on  application  of  the  legislature,  or  the  Executive 
(when  the  legislature  cannot  be  convened) ,  against  domestic  violence.' " 

While  President  Lincoln  insisted  that  the  freedom  of  the  negroes  must 
be  recognized,  he  fully  appreciated  the  "confusion  and  destitution"  which 
would  attend  a  sudden  'disruption  of  the  labor  system.  On  this  subject  he 
proposed  in  his  message  to  acquiesce  in  any  reasonable  temporary  state  ar 
rangement  for  the  freed  people  which  might  be  made  with  the  view  of 
modifying  the  confusion  and  destitution  which  must  at  best  attend  all  classes 
by  a  total  revolution  of  labor  throughout  the  Southern  States.  He  expresses 
the  hope  that  the  already  deeply  afflicted  people  in  those  states  may  be  some 
what  more  ready  to  give  up  the  cause  of  their  affliction,  if,  to  that  extent,  this 
vital  matter  be  left  to  themselves  ;  while  no  power  of  the  national  Executive 


CONGRESS  MODIFIES  MR.  LINCOLN'S  POLICY.  339 

to  prevent  an  abuse  is  abridged  by  the  proposition.  The  proclamation  also 
declared  that  the  Executive  claimed  no  right  to  insure  to  the  reconstructed 
states  a  representation  in  Congress.  That  matter  the  President  regarded  as 
being  exclusively  within  the  control  of  the  two  Houses. 

On  the  motion  of  Henry  Winter  Davis,  of  Maryland,  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,   Dec.    15,    1863,   so    much  of  the  President's    message  as 
related  to  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  guarantee  a  republican  form  of 
government  to  the  states  in  which  the  recognized  governments  were  over 
thrown,  was  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  nine.      Upon  the  question,  the 
yeas  were  89,  the  nays  80.     That  committee  had  instructions  to  report  bills 
necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  the  constitutional  guaranty  into    effect. 
A  bill  was  reported  by  the  committee,  which  passed  in  the  House  by  a  strict 
party  vote,  except  that  Mr.  Whaley,  Republican,  of  West  Virginia,  voted  in 
the  negative.     The  yeas  were  74,   the  nays  66.      The   leading  features  of 
the  bill  were  as  follows :   The  President  was  authorized  to  appoint  a  pro 
visional  governor  for  each  of  the  states  declared  to  be  in  rebellion,  with  the 
pay  and  emoluments  of  a  brigadier-general.     He  was  to  be  charged  with 
the   civil   administration    until  a  state  government    should    be   recognized. 
The  governors  were  to  direct  the  United  States  Marshals  to  enroll  all  the 
white    male   citizens  of  the   United    States    resident  within  the    respective 
states  as  soon  as  the  insurrection  should  be  suppressed,  and  whenever  a  ma 
jority  of  them  should  take  the  oath  of  allegiance.     The  loyarpeople  thus  to  be 
ascertained  «svere  authorized  to  elect  delegates  to  conventions  for  the  purpose 
of  re-establishing  the  state  governments.     Qualified  voters  in  the  United  States 
Army  were  allowed  to  vote  in  the  camps.     No  person  who  had  held  or  exer 
cised  any  civil  or  military  office  (except  offices  merely  ministerial,  and  mili 
tary  offices  below  the  grade  of  colonel),  state  or  Confederate,  under  the  usurp 
ing  power,  was  allowed  to  vote  or  be  a  member  of  the  legislature,  or  governor. 
Slavery  was   to   be  forever  prohibited,  and  no  debt,   state  or  Confederate, 
created  by  the  usurping  power,  was  to  be  recognized  or  paid  by  the  state. 
The  constitutions  framed  by  the  conventions  of  the  several  states  were  to  be 
ratified  by  the  people  and  reported  to  the  President,  who  would  lay  them 
before  Congress  ;  and  upon  their  approval  by  that  body,  the  President  would 
make  proclamation  recognizing  the  governments  so  established,  and  none 
others ;    whereupon  the  people  might  proceed  to  the  election  of  members 
of  Congress,  and  exercise  all  other  functions  of  co-equal  states.     In  the  mean 
time  the  governor  would  enforce  the  laws  of  the  Union  and  of  the  particular 
state,  as  they  existed  before  the  rebellion,  except  as  regards  slavery. 

Mr.  Wade,  from  the  Committee  on  Territories,  in  the  Senate,  reported 
the  House  bill  with  two  amendments :  one  fixing  the  compensation  of  the 
provisional  governors  at  $3,000,  and  the  other  striking  out  the  word  "  white  " 
where  it  occurs  in  defining  the  qualifications  of  voters  and  office-holders. 
Mr.  Brown,  of  Missouri,  the  Senate  sitting  as  in  committee  of  the  whole, 


340  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

offered  a  substitute  which  deprived  the  people  of  the  states  in  rebellion  of 
the  right  to  elect  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  and  Presidential 
electors,  until  the  insurrection  or  rebellion  should  be  abandoned  or  suppressed, 
and  until  the  return  of  the  inhabitants  to  their  allegiance  should  be  acknowl 
edged  by  proclamation  of  the  President.  This  substitute  was  agreed  to  — 
yeas  17,  nays  16;  Messrs.  Brown,  Cowan,  Doolittle,  Grimes,  Henderson, 
Johnson,  Lane  of  Indiana,  Trumbull,  and  Van  Winkle  —  the  latter  of  West 
Virginia  —  voting  in  the  affirmative  with  the  Democrats.  The  Senate  then 
adopted  the  substitute,  by  yeas  20,  nays  13  ;  Messrs.  Harlan,  of  Iowa,  Harris, 
of  New-York,  and  Pomeroy,  of  Kansas,  voting  with  the  Democrats,  together 
with  the  other  Republicans  named  above.  The  bill  then  passed  its  final 
reading  —  yeas  26,  nays  3.  The  nays  were  Messrs.  Davis  and  Powell,  of 
Kentucky,  and  Saulsbury,  of  Delaware.  An  amendment  proposed  by  Mr. 
Sumner,  making  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  a  statute,  was  rejected  — 
yeas  n,  nays  21. 

When  the  bill  came  back  from  the  Senate,  Mr.  Garfield,  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  June  13,  offered  as  a  joint  resolution  the  proposition  of 
Senator  Brown.  The  resolution  was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  and  read  a 
third  time,  but  after  a  brief  colloquy,  it  was,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Blaine,  laid 
on  the  table  by  a  vote  of  104  yeas  to  33  nays.  Mr.  Ashley,  of  Ohio,  asked 
leave,  on  the  2oth  of  June,  to  offer  a  joint  resolution  of  similar  purport ; 
but  it  was  objected  to.  On  the  22d  of  June,  i86^YMr.  Dawes,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  in  the  House,  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Elections,  a  reso 
lution  proposing  the  appointment  of  a  commission  by  the  President,  for  the 
purpose  of  visiting  such  of  the  states  lately  in  rebellion  as  had  taken  steps 
to  re-establish  their  relations  of  allegiance  to  the  Union.  He  desired  to 
ascertain  whether  the  loyal  people  in  them  were  sufficiently  strong  to  main 
tain  the  reorganized  governments  against  the  insurgents.  Another  resolu 
tion  declared  that  no  state  thus  set  up  should  be  acknowledged  until  evi 
dence  was  furnished  of  its  ability  to  sustain  itself. 

The  House  non-concurred  with  the  Senate's  amendment,  and  asked  for  a 
committee  of  conference.  But  the  Senate  receded  from  its  amendment.  It 
adopted  the  House  bill  —  yeas  18,  nays-  14.  Messrs.  Doolittle,  Henderson, 
Lane  of  Indiana,  Ten  Eyck  of  New  Jersey,  Trumbull,  and  Van  Winkle 
voting  in  the  negative,  with  the  Democrats.  This  bill  was  in  the  main  con 
formable  to  the  plans  recommended  by  the  President.  It  differed  from  them 
in  some  respects.  These  he  deemed  essential.  He  was  ready  to  approve  the 
action  of  any  state  which  should  be  reconstructed  by  the  people  in  con 
formity  with  the  congressional  plan  ;  but  he  could  not  consent  to  the  over 
throw  of  what  had  already  been  done  in  Arkansas  and  Louisiana  for  the 
restoration  of  their  relations  to  the  LTnion.  In  these  states  constitutions  had 
been  re-formed,  and  officers  had  been  elected  under  them  on  the  plans  recom 
mended  by  the  President.  The  bill  passed  by  the  two  houses  would  have 


THE  PRESIDENT  DISPLEASES  THE  REPUBLICANS.  341 

overthrown  these  inchoate  state  governments,  inasmuch  as  it  prescribed  con 
ditions  which  had  not  been  complied  with.  For  these  reasons  the  President 
withheld  his  signature  from  it,  as  stated  in  his  proclamation.  Congress  ad 
journed  within  an  hour  after  its  passage.  To  this  fact  the  President  refers  as 
an  additional  reason  for  the  course  he  pursued.  He  thought  that  time  should 
be  given  him  to  consider  its  important  provisions.  He  declares,  however, 
that  he  approves,  in  the  main,  the  principles  it  contains,  and  that  in  con 
formity  with  its  spirit,  he  would  appoint  provisional  governors  in  the  rebel 
lious  states  whenever  the  people  should  indicate  a  wish  to  return  to  their 
allegiance. 

The  proclamations  of  President  Lincoln  with  reference  to  reconstruction, 
and  especially  that  of  July  8,  1864,  in  which,  while  announcing  his  refusal 
to  sign  the  Reconstruction  bill,  he  proposes  to  carry  out  some  of  its  provisions, 
gave  rise  to  great  dissatisfaction  among  some  very  earnest  Republicans.  It 
was  in  this  connection  that  Senator  Wade,  of  Ohio,  and  Representative 
Henry  Winter  Davis,  of  Maryland,  published  a  vigorous  protest.  It  ar 
raigned  the  conduct  of  the  President.  Disregarding  the  reason  assigned  by 
him  for  withholding  his  signature  from  this  Reconstruction  bill,  namely,  that 
it  set  aside  what  had  already  been  done  in  Arkansas  and  Louisiana  by  the 
loyal  people,  Messrs.  Wade  and  Davis  charged  him  with  having  perpetrated 
"  a  studied  outrage  upon  the  legislative  authority  of  the  people."  They 
said  :  "  If  electors  for  President  be  allowed  to  be  chosen  in  either  of  those 
states,  a  sinister  light  will  be  cast  on  the  motives  which  induced  the  Presi 
dent  to  'hold  for  naught'  the  will  of  Congress,  rather  than  his  government 
in  Louisiana  and  Arkansas."  These  suspicions  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  motives 
were  without  foundation,  since  it  was  manifestly  impracticable  for  him  to 
authorize  the  reconstructed  states  to  cast  electoral  votes  and  give  effect  to 
them,  without  and  against  the  consent  of  Congress. 

Louisiana,  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  and  Virginia  had  loyal  governments  set 
up  within  their  limits  during  the  war  ;  but  they  were  regarded  as  too  feeble  to 
be  self-sustaining,  even  if  Congress  had  reposed  entire  confidence  in  the  men 
who  had  charge  of  them.  When  Mr.  Sumner  was  appealed  to,  about  this 
time,  for  his  influence  and  vote  in  favor  of  the  recognition  of  the  improvised 
state  government  of  Virginia,  his  reply  was  that  it  was  too  feeble  to  be 
self-sustaining,  and  that  he  regarded  it  as  a  "  seven  months'  child."  Only 
West  Virginia,  situated  beyond  the  Alleghanies,  and  never  having  much 
liking  for  slavery,  nor  affinity  with  the  old  state  of  which  it  was  an  outlying 
territory,  succeeded  in  being  recognized  by  Congress  during  the  existence  of 
the  Confederacy.  The  division  of  Virginia  being  accomplished  without  the 
consent  of  the  major  part  of  the  people,  who  were  in  rebellion,  must  be  re 
garded  as  among  the  extra  constitutional  measures  which  were  inevitable  dur 
ing  the  period  of  civil  war.  It  would  have  been  violative  of  the  constitu 
tional  rights  of  the  loyal  men  of  the  western  counties,  to  make  their  status 


342        THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

dependent  on  the  will  of  the  majority,  who  were  at  open  war  with  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States ;  but  the  alternative  to  set  them  up  as  an  in 
dependent  state  was  not  the  only  one. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  Dec.  20,  1864,  Mr.  Ashley,  of  Ohio, 
reported  from  the  select  committee  a  bill  similar  in  its  provisions  to  Mr. 
Brown's  substitute  for  the  original  bill  of  the  preceding  session.  It  de 
clared  the  slaves  free,  recognized  the  reconstructed  state  governments  of 
Louisiana  and  Arkansas,  and  provided  for  the  organization  of  governments 
in  the  other  Southern  states  on  the  same  conditions.  It  excluded  from  the 
right  of  suffrage  and  of  office-holding,  all  the  higher  civil  and  military  offi 
cials  of  the  Confederacy.  The  voters  were  to  be  the  loyal  white  male  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania,  moved  to  amend 
by  adding,  "  and  all  other  male  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  may  be 
able  to  read  the  Constitution  thereof.'*  This  direct  proposition  to  declare  a 
qualified  suffrage  by  act  of  Congress  failed  to  receive  the  sanction  of  that 
body.  Other  propositions  were  made  in  the  form  of  substitutes  not  materially 
differing  from  the  foregoing.  Finally,  on  Feb.  21,  1865,  the  bill  was,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  Mallory,  of  Kentucky,  laid  on  the  table.  The  next  day 
the  subject  came  up  again  on  the  report  of  a  bill  from  the  Judiciary  Com 
mittee,  by  Mr.  Wilson,  of  Iowa.  But  it,  too,  was  laid  on  the  table,  fourteen 
Republicans  voting  with  the  Democrats. 

A  joint  resolution  was  reported  from  the  House  Judiciary  Committee 
by  Mr.  Wilson,  Jan.  30,  1865,  declaring  that  the  states  in  rebellion  were 
not  entitled  to  be  represented  in  the  Electoral  College,  and  that  no  electoral 
votes  from  them  should  be  received  or  counted,  in  the  choice  of  a  President 
and  Vice-President.  It  was  adopted  without  a  division  ;  and  after  undergoing 
a  slight  verbal  amendment,  it  was  passed  by  the  Senate.  The  House  agreed 
to  the  Senate's  amendment,  and  the  President  gave  it  his  signature,  while 
disclaiming,  in  a  brief  message,  any  right  to  control  the  two  houses  as  to 
the  admission  of  members  and  the  counting  of  electoral  votes.  Mr.  Trum- 
bull,  from  the  Judiciary  Committee,  Feb.  18,  1865,  reported  on  the  creden 
tials  of  Charles  Smith  and  R.  King  Cutter,  as  Senators  from  the  State  of 
Louisiana,  with  a  joint  resolution  recognizing  the  state  government  adopted 
at  New  Orleans  in  April  of  the  preceding  year.  Similar  applications  were 
made  from  Virginia,  Tennessee,  and  Arkansas.  But  nothing  came  of  them, 
and  the  matter  was  postponed  until  the  next  session  of  Congress. 

On  the  subject  of  reconstruction,  the  last  utterances  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  in 
his  last  public  speech,  will  be  read  with  interest.  April  n,  1865,  four  days 
before  his  death  by  assassination,  he  addressed  a  number  of  citizens  who 
had  called  to  congratulate  him  on  the  fall  of  Richmond,  and  the  surrender  of 
General  Lee  with  the  army  of  northern  Virginia.  After  the  expression  of 
his  joy  at  "  the  evacuation  of  Petersburg  and  Richmond,  and  the  surrender 
of  the  principal  insurgent  army,"  he  proceeds  to  say:  "  By  these  recent 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  RESPONSE  TO  RADICAL  DEFAMATION.         343 

successes,  —  the  re-inauguration  of  the  national  authority,  —  reconstruction, 
which  has  had  a  large  share  of  thought  from  the  first,  is  pressed  much  more 
closely  upon  our  attention.  It  is  fraught  with  great  difficulty.  Unlike  the 
case  of  a  war  between  independent  nations,  there  is  no  authorized  organ  for 
us  to  treat  with.  No  one  man  has  authority  to  give  up  the  rebellion  for  any 
other  man.  We  simply  must  begin  with  and  mould  from  disorganized  and 
discordant  elements.  Nor  is  it  a  small  additional  embarrassment  that  we, 
the  loyal  people,  differ  among  ourselves  as  to  the  mode,  manner,  and  means 
of  reconstruction.  As  a  general  rule,  I  abstain  from  reading  the  reports 
of  attacks  upon  myself,  wishing  not  to  be  provoked  by  that  to  which  I  can 
not  properly  offer  an  answer.  In  spite  of  this  precaution,  however,  it  comes 
to  my  knowledge  that  I  am  much  censured,  from  some  supposed  agency  in 
setting  up  and  seeking  to  sustain  the  new  state  government  of  Louisiana. 
In  this  I  have  done  just  so  much  as,  and  no  more  than,  the  public  knows." 

The  new  government  of  Louisiana  here  referred  to  by  Mr.  Lincoln  was 
adopted  by  a  convention  held  in  New  Orleans  in  April,  1864,  and  the  conr 
stitution  on  which  it  was  founded  was  ratified  by  twelve  thousand  white 
voters.  He  regarded  this  government  as  the  first  fruit  of  his  Amnesty  procla 
mation,  and  was  desirous  of  its  recognition  by  Congress.  The  new  con 
stitution  contained  an  article  abolishing  and  forever  excluding  slavery,  and 
the  other  provisions  required  by  the  proclamation  ;  but  it  contained  no  pro 
vision  for  the  enfranchisement  of  the  colored  race.  This  was  now  made  a 
serious  ground  of  objection  by  many.  When  the  proclamation  was  issued, 
public  opinion  had  not  advanced  far  enough  to  sustain  a  measure  so  radical  as 
negro  suffrage ;  but,  as  the  sectional  struggle  drew  to  a  close,  and  after  the 
colored  men  had  borne  their  part  in  it,  the  sentiment  in  favor  of  their  politi 
cal  equality  with  white  men  —  or,  at  least,  Southern  white  men  —  grew 
stronger  in  the  Republican  party.  Thus,  while  the  people  of  the  Northern 
states  were  not  yet  quite  ready  to  grant  political  equality  even  to  the  best 
educated  colored  men  within  their  own  borders,  the  radical  Representatives 
in  Washington  were  intent  on  bestowing  universal  suffrage  upon  the  utterly 
illiterate  negroes  of  the  South. 

The  suggestion  of  the  President  in  his  Amnesty  proclamation,  that,  as  a 
temporary  arrangement  for  the  preservation  of  order  and  the  prevention  of 
anarchy,  the  Southern  legislatures  might  institute  a  sort  of  guardianship  over 
the  freedmen,  now  became  a  serious  ground  of  complaint  against  him. 
But  the  proposed  plan  for  new  governments  went  not  so  far  as  this.  On  the 
contrary,  it  secured  immediate  and  entire  freedom  to  the  negroes. 

Another  question  on  which  Mr.  Lincoln  fell  behind  the  current  of  party 
opinion,  and  upon  which  he  was  arraigned  by  men  of  extreme,  or  "  ad 
vanced"  views,  was  that  in  regard  to  the  status  of  the  lately  insurgent 
states  ; —  in  other  words,  on  the  question  whether  they  were  in  the  Union,  or 
out  of  it.  In  the  speech  above  quoted  from,  the  President,  alluding  to 


344  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

complaints  that  he  had  not  defined  his  position  on  this  subject,  declared 
that  he  had  "  purposely  forborne  any  public  expression  upon  it."  But, 
answering  these  complaints,  he  said:  "As  appears  to  me,  that  ques 
tion  has  not  been,  nor  yet  is,  a  practically  material  one,  and  any  discus 
sion  of  it,  while  it  thus  remains  practically  immaterial,  could  have  no 
effect  other  than  the  mischievous  one  of  dividing  our  friends.  As  yet,  what 
ever  it  may  hereafter  become,  that  question  is  bad,  as  the  basis  of  a  contro 
versy,  and  good  for  nothing  at  all  —  a  merely  pernicious  abstraction.  We 
all  agree  that  the  seceded  states,  so-called,  are  out  of  their  proper  practical 
relation  with  the  Union,  and  that  the  sole  object  of  the  government,  civil  and 
military,  in  regard  to  those  states,  is  to  again  get  them  into  that  proper  prac 
tical  relation.  I  believe  it  is  not  only  possible,  but,  in  fact,  easier  to  do  this 
without  deciding,  or  even  considering,  whether  these  states  have  ever  been 
out  of  the  Union,  than  with  it.  Finding  themselves  safely  at  home,  it  would 
be  utterly  immaterial  whether  they  had  ever  been  abroad.  .  .  .  The 
amount  of  constituency,  so  to  speak,  on  which  the  new  Louisiana  govern 
ment  rests  would  be  more  satisfactory  to  all,  if  it  contained  fifty,  thirty, 
or  even  twenty  thousand,  instead  of  only  about  twelve  thousand,  as  it 
really  does.  It  is  also  unsatisfactory,  that  the  elective  franchise  is  not 
given  to  the  colored  men.  I  would  myself  prefer  that  it  were  now  conferred 
on  the  very  intelligent,  and  on  those  who  serve  our  cause  as  soldiers.  Still, 
the  question  is  not  whether  the  Louisiana  government,  as  it  stands,  is  quite 
all  that  is  desirable.  The  question  is :  Will  it  be  wiser  to  take  it  as  it  is 
and  help  to  improve  it,  or  to  reject  and  disperse  it?  .  .  .  Can  Louisiana  be 
brought  into  proper  practical  relation  with  the  Union  sooner  by  sustaining, 
or  by  discarding  her  new  state  government? " 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  radical  leaders  in  regard  to 
reconstruction  ;  and,  contrary  to  their  views,  or  rather  schemes,  he  held  that 
the  ratification  by  three-fourths  of  all  the  states,  including  those  then  lately 
in  rebellion,  was  necessary  to  make  valid  a  constitutional  amendment.  On 
this  subject,  he  said,  in  the  same  speech  :  "  Again,  if  we  reject  Louisiana, 
we  also  reject  one  vote  in  favor  of  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  national 
Constitution.  To  meet  this  proposition  it  has  been  argued  that  no  more 
than  three-fourths  of  those  states  which  have  not  attempted  secession  are 
necessary  to  ratify  the  amendment.  I  do  not  commit  myself  against  this, 
further  than  to  say  that  such  a  ratification  would  be  questionable,  and  sure 
to  be  persistently  questioned  ;  whilst  a  ratification  by  three-fourths  of  all  the 
states  would  be  unquestioned  and  unquestionable." 

On  the  night  of  the  I4th  of  April,  three  days  after  the  delivery  of  this,  his 
last  public  speech,  its  great  and  good  author  received  the  fatal  shot  from  that 
infamous  assassin  which  instantly  deprived  him  of  consciousness  and  ter 
minated  his  life  on  the  following  morning.  His  death  was  a  sad  event  to 
the  people.  It  was  the  saddest  event  in  our  history  —  and  especially  sad  in 


RECONSTRUCT/ON  GOVERNORS. 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  POSITION  IN  HISTORY.  345 

its  consequences  to  the  Southern  people.  President  Lincoln  was  not  without 
faults,  but  his  goodness  and  virtues  far  overshadowed  them.  None  more 
than  he  ever  better  illustrated  the  maxim  that  the  good  alone  are  great. 

It  was  almost  a  peculiarity  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  among  the  great  men  of  his 
tory,  that  all  his  public  and  private  utterances  bear  the  impress  of  an  honest, 
conscientious  regard  for  whatever  he  believed  to  be  right  and  wise.  Though 
"popular  beyond  all  others  of  his  time,"  he  never  sought  station  or  ad 
vancement  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  public  welfare  on  the  shrine  of  party  or 
personal  ambition.  He  was  singularly  free  from  sectional  and  partisan  pas 
sion  and  animosity.  It  was  a  privilege  of  the  writer  to  see  him  often  while 
he  was  in  the  possession  of  his  great  office,  and  to  hear  him  converse  upon 
public  affairs.  At  no  time  did  Mr.  Lincoln  utter  a  harsh  or  unkind  word  in 
regard  to  political  opponents,  or  toward  the  insurgent  South.  When  no 
great  public  concern  engaged  his  attention,  and  perhaps  as  a  temporary  relief 
from  the  cares  of  state,  his  conversation  was  often  light  and  humorous  ;  but 
Mr.  Lincoln  could  discard  frivolity  when  confronted  by  a  serious  demand  on 
his  powers.  He  could  always  rise  up  to  the  occasion.  He  possessed  a  clear 
and  vigorous  understanding,  and  a  sincere  love  of  truth.  His  reasoning 
powers  were  remarkable.  He  could,  upon  occasion,  rise  to  the  most  sublime 
flights  of  eloquence.  His  little  introductory  speech  at  the  Gettysburg  ceme 
tery  dedication  will  outlive  the  elaborate  and  eloquent  oration  delivered  by 
Mr.  Everett  on  the  same  day.  There  were  men  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  Cabinet 
eminent  for  learning  and  talents ;  trained  statesmen  distinguished  for  the 
moral  courage  with  which  they  had  encountered  the  fierce  and  unbending 
antagonism  of  the  Southern  slave-holding  leaders  ;  but  in  virtue  of  his  native 
resolution,  single-hearted  love  of  truth  and  right,  his  clear  and  strong  under 
standing,  cultivated  and  sharpened  by  the  study  and  practice  of  law,  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  more  than  the  peer  of  the  best  of  them.  In  these  qualities,  in 
broad  humanity  and  in  devotion  to  country,  Abraham  Lincoln  stands  the 
peer  of  the  purest  and  greatest  men  of  whom  history  leaves  a  record. 


by 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  POLICY  OF  RECONSTRUCTION. 

WHEREIN  IT  DIFFERED  FROM  MR.  LINCOLN'S  —  THE  END  OF  THE  BLOCKADE  — 
ALL  THE  PORTS  OPEN  —  REVENUE  AND  POSTAL  LAWS  IN  FORCE  — THE 
CIVIL  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNORS  —  THE  MILITARY  AID  THEM  — THE  MILI 
TARY  NOT  TO  OBSTRUCT  THE  VOTERS  —  LOYALTY  AND  WHITE  SUFFRAGE 
THE  RULE  —  INTENSE  RADICAL  DISSATISFACTION  —  SENATOR  HOWE'S  PE 
CULIAR  VIEWS  OF  STATE  RIGHTS— A  STATE  AS  A  MANUFACTURED  PRO 
DUCT!— "IF  THE  STATES  ARE  ADMITTED  "— THE  RADICAL  ARGUMENT  AS 
INC ONVENIENTI—  REMARKS  OF  THE  AUTHOR  —  THE  COMPATIBILITY  OF 
STATE  AND  FEDERAL  RIGHTS  —  INDESTRUCTIBLE  STATES  AND  UNION. 

THE  reconstruction  policy  of  President  Lincoln,  as  has  been  shown 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  was  to  offer  amnesty  to  all  participants 
in  the  rebellion,  excepting  only  certain  classes  of  persons  who  had 
been  prominent  as  leaders.  Those  to  whom  the  amnesty  was  ex 
tended  would  be  required  to  renew  their  allegiance  to  the  United  States 
under  the  solemnity  of  an  oath  which  required  a  pledge  to  support  the 
acts  of  Congress  and  the  President's  proclamation  in  regard  to  slavery. 
The  classes  excluded  from  amnesty,  until  a  special  pardon  should  be  granted, 
were  :  All  civil  and  diplomatic  officers  or  agents  of  the  Confederate  States  ; 
all  who  had  left  judicial  stations,  or  seats  in  Congress,  or  the  army  or  navy 
of  the  United  States,  to  take  part  in  the  rebellion ;  all  army  and  navy  offi 
cers  in  the  service  of  the  Confederacy  above  the  rank  of  colonel  in  the 
army  or  lieutenant  in  the  navy ;  and  all  who  had  been  engaged  in  treating 
colored  soldiers,  or  white  officers  in  command  of  them,  otherwise  than  law 
fully,  when  prisoners  of  war.  Those  included  in  these  classes  numbered  but 
a  few  hundred  persons  in  each  state.  All  others  who  so  desired  could  take 
the  oath,  and  exercise  their  political  franchise. 

President  Johnson's  policy  was  not  so  liberal  as  that  of.  his  predecessor. 
In  his  Amnesty  proclamation,  issued  on  May  29,  1865,  h/  xcepted  from  its 
benefits  all  the  classes  mentioned  in  his  predecessor's  py  mation,  and  also 
the  following  classes  :  All  officers  who  had  resignec  ;endered  resigna 
tions  of  their  commissions  in  the  army  or  navy  of  the  Uni  ;d  States,  to  evade 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  AMNESTY  PROCLAMATION.  347 

duty  in  resisting  rebellion. —  All  persons  who  had  been,  or  were  then,  ab 
sentees  from  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  rebellion. —  All 
military  and  naval  officers  in  the  rebel  service  who  were  educated  by  the 
government  in  the  Military  Academy  at  West  Point,  or  the  United  States 
Naval  Academy. —  All  persons  who  had  held  the  pretended  offices  of  gov 
ernors  of  states  in  insurrection  against  the  United  States.—  All  persons  who 
had  left  their  homes  within  the  jurisdiction  and  protection  of  the  United 
States,  and  passed  beyond  the  Federal  military  lines  into  the  pretended  Con 
federate  States  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  rebellion. —  All  persons  who 
had  been  engaged  in  the  destruction  of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States 
upon  the  high  seas. — All  persons  who  had  made  raids  into  the  United 
States  from  Canada,  or  been  engaged  in  destroying  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States  upon  the  lakes  and  rivers  that  separate  the  British  provinces 
from  the  United  States.  — All  persons  who  at  the  time  might  seek  to  obtain 
the  benefits  of  the  amnesty  by  taking  the  oath  presented  in  the  proclama 
tion,  and  were  in  military,  naval,  or  civil  confinement  or  custody,  or  under 
bonds  of  the  civil,  military,  or  naval  authorities,  or  agents  of  the  United 
States,  as  prisoners  of  war,  or  who  were  detained  for  offenses  of  any  kind, 
either  before  or  after  conviction.  —  All  persons  who  had  voluntarily  partici 
pated  in  the  rebellion,  and  the  estimated  value  of  whose  taxable  property 
was  over  twenty  thousand  dollars. — And  all  persons  who  had  taken  the 
oath  of  amnesty  as  prescribed  in  the  President's  proclamation  of  Dec.  8, 
1863,  or  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  since 
the  date  of  that  proclamation,  and  who  did  not  keep  and  maintain  the  same 
inviolate. 

It  was  provided  in  President  Johnson's  proclamation,  that  special  appli 
cation  might  be  made  to  the  Executive  for  pardon  by  any  person  belonging 
to  the  excepted  classes  ;  and  it  was  stated  therein  that  such  clemency  would 
be  liberally  extended  as  might  be  consistent  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  and 
with  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  United  States.  All  persons  who  had  di 
rectly  or  indirectly  participated  in  the  rebellion,  save  those  in  the  excepted 
classes,  were  by  this  proclamation  granted  amnesty  and  pardon,  with  res 
toration  of  all  rights  of  property,  except  in  slaves,  or  in  cases  where  legal 
proceedings  had  been  instituted  under  the  confiscation  acts  of  Congress. 
This  amnesty  and  pardon  was  granted  on  the  condition  that  the  persons  to 
whom  it  was  offered  should  take  an  oath  to  support,  protect,  and  defend  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  to  abide  by,  and  faithfully  support 
all  laws  and  proclamations  which  had  been  made  during  the  rebellion,  with 
reference  to  the  emancipation  of  slaves.  Pursuant  to  this  proclamation, 
rules  were  made  by  the  Secretary  of  State  for  administering  and  recording 
the  amnesty  oath  prescribed. 

On  the  day  President  Johnson  issued  this  Amnesty  proclamation,  May 
29,  1865,  he  also  declared  his  policy  of  reconstruction  in  another  procla- 


348  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

mation,  in  which  he  announced  the  appointment  of  William  W.  Holden  as 
provisional  governor  of  North  Carolina.  In  the  latter  document  he  stated 
the  constitutional  grounds  on  which  he  acted,  as  follows :  "  The  fourth  sec 
tion  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares 
that  the  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  state  in  the  Union  a  republi 
can  form  of  government,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion 
and  domestic  violence  ;  and  whereas,  the  President  of  the  United  States  is 
by  the  Constitution  made  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy,  as  well 
as  chief  civil  executive  officer  of  the  United  States,  and  is  bound  by  solemn 
oath  faithfully  to  execute  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States  and 
to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed ;  and  whereas,  the  rebellion 
which  has  been  waged  by  a  portion  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
against  the  properly  constituted  authorities  of  the  government  thereof  in  the 
most  violent  and  revolting  form,  but  whose  organized  and  armed  forces  have 
now  been  almost  entirely  overcome,  has  in  its  revolutionary  progress  de 
prived  the  people  of  North  Carolina  of  civil  government ;  and  whereas,  it 
becomes  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  out  and  enforce  the  obligations  of 
the  United  States  to  the  people  of  North  Carolina,  in  securing  them  in  the 
enjoyment  of  a  republican  form  of  government :  Now,  therefore,  ...  I, 
Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  and  Commander-in-chief 
of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States,  do  hereby  appoint  William  W. 
Holden  provisional  governor  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina." 

Mr.  Holden  was  to  prescribe,  at  the  earliest  period  practicable,  the  neces 
sary  rules  and  regulations  for  calling  a  convention.  The  delegates  were  to 
be  chosen  by  that  portion  of  the  people  of  the  state  who  were  loyal  to  the 
United  States.  The  convention  was  to  meet  for  the  purpose  of  altering  or 
amending  the  state  constitution.  The  provisional  governor  was  author 
ized  to  exercise  all  the  powers  necessary  and  proper  to  enable  the  loyal  peo 
ple  to  restore  the  state  to  its  constitutional  relations  with  the  government. 
A  proviso  in  the  proclamation  declared  all  persons  of  the  fourteen  ex- 
cepted  classes  to  be  ineligible  to  vote  for  delegates,  or  to  be  delegates ;  and 
another  required  voters  to  take  the  prescribed  oath  of  allegiance.  With 
these  limitations,  the  convention  had  the  power  to  define  the  qualifications 
of  electors  and  office-holders  under  the  state  government.  The  military 
commander  of  the  department,  and  all  officers  and  persons  in  the  military 
and  naval  service  were  directed  to  aid  the  governor,  and  not  to  hinder  or 
discourage  the  people  in  their  efforts  to  organize  the  state  government. 
And  the  heads  of  departments  were  severally  directed  to  appoint  all  neces 
sary  Federal  officers,  and  to  put  the  laws  of  the  United  States  in  force 
within  the  limits  of  the  state. 

June  1 3th,  of  the  same  year,  William  L.  Sharkey  was  appointed  pro 
visional  governor  of  Mississippi,  by  a  proclamation  conferring  like  powers. 
June  1 7th,  James  Johnson  was  appointed  provisional  governor  of  Georgia, 


THE  END  OF  THE  BLOCKADE.  349 

and  Andrew  J.  Hamilton,  provisional  governor  of  Texas.  June  2ist, 
Lewis  E.  Parsons  was  appointed  provisional  governor  of  Alabama.  June 
30th,  Benjamin  F.  Perry  was  appointed  provisional  governor  of  South  Caro 
lina,  and  July  I3th,  William  Marvin  was  appointed  provisional  governor  of 
Florida.  Each  of  these  temporary  governors  was  clothed  with  like  powers 
to  those  conferred  on  the  governor  of  North  Carolina.  The  reconstructed 
loyal  government  of  Virginia,  with  Francis  H.  Pierpont  as  governor,  was 
recognized  by  Mr.  Johnson.  In  Tennessee  a  similar  reconstruction  had 
taken  place.  William  G.  Brownlow  had  been  elected  governor  of  that  state 
on  March  4,  1865.  The  loyal  white  people  of  Arkansas  had  organized  a 
new  state  government,  which  President  Johnson  recognized  in  a  telegram  to 
Governor  Murphy,  dated  Oct.  30,  1865.  The  reconstructed  state  govern 
ment  of  Louisiana,  with  J.  M.  Wells  as  governor,  was  in  like  manner  recog 
nized  by  President  Johnson.  In  the  state  governments  which  were  organ 
ized  under  President  Johnson's  proclamation  —  like  the  four  last  mentioned, 
which  were  organized  under  Mr.  Lincoln's  proclamation  of  Dec.  8,  1863  — 
the  suffrage  was  confined  to  the  loyal  white  men ;  the  test  of  loyalty  being 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

On  May  22,  1865,  President  Johnson  issued  a  proclamation  declaring  all 
ports  which  had  previously  been  subjected  to  blockade  —  except  the  ports  of 
Galveston,  La  Salle,  Brazos  de  Santiago,  and  Brownsville,  in  the  State  of 
Texas — open  to  foreign  commerce,  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  July  follow 
ing.  On  the  23d  of  June,  1865,  another  proclamation  opened  the  excepted 
ports  to  foreign  commerce.  By  the  proclamation  of  May  22,  all  restrictions 
of  trade  in  the  states  east  of  the  Mississippi  River  were  removed,  except  in 
regard  to  articles  contraband  of  war,  property  purchased  in  the  territory  of 
an  enemy,  and  the  levy  of  twenty-five  per  cent,  on  purchases  of  cotton.  This 
proclamation  directed,  further,  that  all  provisions  of  the  revenue  laws 
were  to  be  carried  out  in  these  states  by  the  proper  officers.  These  pro 
clamations  were  followed  by  others  providing  for  the  operation  of  the  cus 
toms  laws,  internal  revenue  laws,  and  postal  laws,  and  for  the  opening  of  the 
United  States  courts  throughout  all  the  Southern  States. 

These  independent  measures  of  the  Executive  for  reconstruction  were  far 
from  giving  satisfaction  to  the  Republican  party.  Within  a  few  days  after 
the  meeting  of  Congress,  in  December,  1865,  Mr.  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania, 
asked  leave  to  introduce  a  joint  resolution  which  provided  that  a  committee  of 
fifteen  members  should  be  appointed — nine  of  whom  were  to  be  members  of 
the  House  and  six  to  be  members  of  the  Senate — for  the  purpose  of  inquiring 
into  the  condition  of  the  states  which  had  formed  the  so-called  Confederate 
States  of  America.  This  committee  was  to  report  whether  these  states  or 
any  of  them  were  entitled  to  be  represented  in  either  house  of  Congress. 
Leave  was  given  to  report  at  any  time,  by  bill  or  otherwise,  and  until  such 
report  should  be  made  and  finally  acted  upon  by  Congress,  no  member  was 


350  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

to  be  received  into  either  house  from  any  of  those  states.  All  papers  re 
lating  to  this  representation  in  Congress  were  to  be  referred  to  this  com 
mittee  without  debate.  This  resolution  was  adopted  in  the  House  by  a  vote 
of — yeas  133,  nays  36. 

A  caucus  of  Republican  Senators  was  held  with  reference  to  this  joint 
resolution,  in  which  certain  amendments  were  agreed  to.  The  resolution 
was  taken  up  in  the  Senate  on  December  12,  and  on  motion  of  Mr.  An 
thony,  the  enacting  clause  was  amended  so  as  to  make  it  a  concurrent,  in 
stead  of  a  joint  resolution.  The  Senator  also  moved  to  strike  out  the  fol 
lowing  clauses :  "  Until  such  report  shall  have  been  made  and  finally  acted 
upon  by  Congress,  no  member  shall  be  received  into  either  house  from 
any  of  the  said  so-called  Confederate  States ;  and  all  papers  relating  to  the 
representation  of  the  said  states  shall  be  referred  to  the  said  committee  with 
out  debate."  The  resolution  as  amended  was  then  adopted.  On  the  fol 
lowing  day,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  the  House  con 
curred  in  the  amendments  of  the  Senate,  and  adopted  the  resolution.  The 
two  houses  then  severally  agreed  to  refer  all  papers  relating  to  representa 
tion  of  the  seceded  states  to  the  concurrent  committee. 

Senator  Howe  introduced  a  joint  resolution  on  Jan.  10,  1866,  in  regard 
to  the  temporary  government  of  the  states  lately  in  rebellion.  The  pream 
ble  recited  the  facts  of  the  secession  of  the  states,  and  their  war  upon  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  "  whereby,'*  according  to  its  words,  "  the 
political  functions  formerly  granted  to  those  people  have  been  suspended." 
The  resolution  went  on  to  say  that,  "  whereas,  such  functions  cannot  yet  be 
restored  to  those  people  with  safety  to  themselves  or  to  the  nation  ;  and 
whereas,  military  tribunals  are  not  suited  to  the  exercise  of  civil  authority ; 
therefore,  Be  it  resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  in 
Congress  assembled,  that  local  governments  ought  to  be  provisionally  organ 
ized  for  the  people  in  each  of  the  districts  named  in  the  preamble  hereto." 

In  his  elaborate  speech  upon  this  resolution,  Senator  Howe  quoted  the 
sixth  article  of  the  Constitution,  second  clause,  which  declares  that,  "  This 
Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be  made  in  pur 
suance  thereto,  and  all  treaties  made  or  which  shall  be  made  under  the 
authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land ;  and 
the  judges  in  every  state  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  constitu 
tion  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding."  He  insisted  that 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution  meant  literally  what  that  article  declares, 
and  not  that  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  states  are  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land.  "  The  war,"  said  he,  "  was  designed  to  demonstrate  that  the  will 
ot  each  state  was  supreme,  and  that  the  United  States  must  defer  to  it." 
Before  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  such  was  the  case  precisely.  The 
several  states  were  sovereign,  and  for  that  very  reason  the  union  formed  be 
tween  them  was  worthless.  The  Congress  of  the  old  Confederation  might 


SENATOR  HOWE'S  VIEWS  OF  STATE  RIGHTS.  351 

enact  laws,  but,  as  their  laws  were  addressed  to  the  states  and  the  states  were 
sovereign,  the  states  would  obey  or  not  as  they  pleased.  Showing  from  this 
defect  the  reasons  for  the  Union,  Mr.  Howe  set  forth  his  views  of  national 
sovereignty  as  follows :  "  The  national  plan  was  adopted.  Thirteen  weak 
and  thriftless  sovereignties  were  welded  into  one  great  and  prosperous  re 
public.  It  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  convention  to  destroy  the  states,  but 
to  change  their  character,  —  to  strip  them  of  sovereignty  and  leave  them  no 
manner  of  authority  to  impede  the  execution  of  the  national  will.  There 
can,"  said  he,  ube  but  little  danger  that  the  several  states  will  be  despoiled 
of  their  rights  by  a  government  constituted  like  that  of  the  United  States." 

Continuing  his  argument  on  which  he  based  the  radical  doctrine  of  re 
construction,  Mr.  Howe  said  :  "  To  my  mind  the  states  have  another  security 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  national  government,  even  more  reliable  than 
this.  It  is  in  the  fact  that  the  people  who  compose  the  several  states  make  the 
government  of  the  United  States.  It  is  not  much  to  be  apprehended  that  the 
creature  will  devour  the  creator.  But  the  states  rights  party  resembles  a  con 
gregation  of  dervishes  dancing  before  an  idol  their  own  hands  have  created, 
and  frantically  imploring  it  not  to  destroy  them.  It  is  not  the  business  of  the 
national  government  to  sway  states.  That  was  the  business  of  the  old  Con 
federation.  It  is  the  business  of  this  government  to  control  people,  and  I 
estimate  its  strength,  as  I  estimate  the  strength  of  all  other  powers,  by  the 
extent  of  its  territory,  by  the  number,  the  wealth,  the  intelligence,  and  the 
loyalty  of  its  people.  .  .  .  Has  any  one  yet  attempted  to  explain  what 
principle  that  is  which  renders  a  state  indestructible  ?  Does  any  one  com 
prehend  it  ?  For  myself  I  do  not.  A  state  is  a  manufacture  as  much  as  a 
wagon  is.  It  is  not,  indeed,  made  in  the  same  way  nor  at  the  same  shops  ; 
but  it  is,  nevertheless,  made,  and  made  by  mortals.  My  friend  from  Nevada 
has  just  helped  to  make  one.  A  state  can  be  made  only  by  those  who  are 
permitted  by  the  nation  to  make  one,  by  those  who  are  willing  to  make  it. 
4  But  once  made,'  we  are  told,  ;  a  state  can  never  die.'  '  Once  a  state 
always  a  state/  they  shout.  And  when,  a  few  years  since,  it  was  hinted  that 
the  rebellious  states  had  committed  suicide,  politicians  laughed  the  sugges 
tion  to  scorn.  Galileo,  when  condemned  to  renounce  the  heresy  of  the 
earth's  motion,  is  said  to  have  made  his  abjuration  with  all  the  formality 
commonly  attending  such  proceedings.  Clad  in  sackcloth  and  kneeling,  he 
swore  upon  the  Gospels  never  again  to  teach  the  earth's  motion,  or  the  sun's 
stability.  Then,  rising  from  the  ground,  he  exclaimed,  '  It  does  move,  after 
all.'  And  so  I,  rising  as  well  as  I  can  under  this  load  of  derision,  cannot 
refrain  from  assuring  the  Senate  that  the  states  can  commit  suicide  and  can 
die.  History  is  but  little  more  than  a  grave-yard  in  which  one  reads  the 
epitaphs  upon  buried  states. 

"  It  is  poetical  license,  and  not  political  science,  which  talks  of  the  immor 
tality  of  states.  Have  the  people  of  Nevada  made  an  organization  which 


352  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

they  cannot  unmake?  If  they  refuse  hereafter  to  choose  governors,  and 
legislators,  and  judges,  and  municipal  officers,  will  the  state  survive  the 
mere  neglect?  On  the  contrary,  would  it  not  be  the  imperative  duty  of 
Congress,  in  such  an  event,  to  resume  the  prerogative  you  have  just  granted 
to  that  people,  and  provide  a  government  to  save  the  people  from  anarchy? 
Do  Senators  comprehend  what  consequences  result  necessarily  from  restor 
ing  the  functions  of  those  states?  It  will  add  fifty-eight  members  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  more  than  one-fourth  of  its  present  number.  It 
will  add  twenty-two  members  to  the  Senate,  nearly  one-half  its  present  num 
ber.  The  Constitution  designed  the  Legislature  to  be  independent  of  the 
Executive.  But  what  independence  has  that  Legislature  into  which  the 
Executive  may  at  his  pleasure  pour  so  many  votes  ?  " 

Truly  this  is  radical,  especially  the  closing  argument,  ab  inconvenienti. 
What  would  be  said  to-day,  if  such  an  address  were  to  be  made  in  the  Senate 
on  this  view  of  the  Constitution  ?  Surely  it  was  nothing  short  of  the  in 
sanity  of  extreme  partisanship.  Would  any  one  to-day  say  that  the  con 
gressional  will  is  the  only  limitation  upon  national  authority  ?  Is  there  no 
constitutional  restraint  upon  that  authority?  The  Democratic  doctrine  is, 
and  ever  has  been,  that  the  states  and  the  Union  are  each  sovereign  in  their 
respective  spheres ;  neither  possessing  unlimited  sovereignty ;  both  having 
their  limited  sovereignty  defined  by  the  Constitution,  so  far  as  the  Federal 
Government  is  concerned.  Aside  from  this  limitation  on  state  sovereignty, 
there  is  none,  except  in  so  far  as  it  may,  in  the  respective  states,  be  defined 
in  their  organic  laws.  The  people  of  each  state,  subject  to  the  powers  they 
granted  in  the  Federal  Constitution,  enlarge  or  restrain  the  powers  of  their 
state  government  to  any  extent  they  may  deem  desirable  for  their  own  wel 
fare.  There  can  be  no  mortality  of  a  state  while  the  Union  exists  —  while 
there  is  a  vital  nationality  under  the  Constitution.  Nothing  short  of  success 
ful  revolution  can  destroy  the  autonomy  of  the  states  of  the  Union.  The 
Union  itself  must  first  be  destroyed.  That  never  has  been  destroyed.  It  was 
the  constant  assertion  of  President  Lincoln  and  Secretary  Seward,  —  the  two 
greatest  men  in  the  Republican  party,  —  throughout  the  whole  period  of  the 
Civil  War,  that  the  Union  remained  undissevered.  Secretary  Seward  never 
departed  from  the  doctrine  of  the  indestructibility  of  the  states.  "  We  are  not 
only  a  nation,  but  we  are  states  also,"  said  he  in  his  first  letter  of  instruction 
to  Mr.  Adams,  on  the  appointment  of  the  latter  as  our  minister  to  England. 
This  was  on  the  loth  of  April,  1861.  Mr.  Seward  set  forth  the  President's 
views  in  that  letter,  so  that  Mr.  Adams  would  clearly  understand  the  policy 
which  the  Administration  proposed  to  pursue.  All  our  ministers  abroad  were 
to  conform  their  action  to  that  policy.  In  the  first  place,  there  was  to  be 
no  coercion  of  any  state.  "The  President,"  said  Mr.  Seward,  "  would  not  be 
disposed  to  reject  a  cardinal  dogma  of  theirs  [the  secession  leaders],  namely, 
that  the  Federal  Government  could  not  reduce  the  seceding  states  to 


INDESTRUCTIBLE  STATES  AND  UNION.  353 

obedience  by  conquest,  even,  although  he  were  disposed  to  question  that 
proposition.  But,  in  fact,  the  President  willingly  accepts  it  as  true."  The 
doctrine  of  Lincoln  and  Seward  was  not  subjugation  nor  conquest,  but  the 
assertion  and  restoration  of  the  Federal  authority  in  every  seceding  state. 

There  might  be  a  national  agreement  without  states  ;  but  there  could  be 
no  Union  without  states  to  unite.  All  the  states  must  have  existence.  It  was 
the  secessionist  only,  who  asserted  that  "  the  Union  is  a  purely  voluntary 
connection,  founded  on  the  revocable  assent  of  the  several  states."  Mr. 
Seward  and  Mr.  Lincoln  said  to  Mr.  Adams,  in  regard  to  the  seceding 
states:  "You  will  .  .  .  all  the  while  remember  that  these  states  are  now, 
as  they  always  heretofore  have  been,  and  notwithstanding  their  temporary 
self-delusion  they  must  always  continue  to  be,  equal  and  honored  members 
of  this  Federal  Union ;  and  that  their  citizens,  throughout  all  political 
misunderstandings  and  alienations,  still  are,  and  always  must  be,  our  kindred 
and  countrymen."  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  disloyalty  to  the  Union 
and  at  the  same  time  loyalty  to  a  state.  The  converse  is  also  true.  "All 
public  officers,  as  well  as  all  citizens,"  said  Mr.  Seward,  "  owe  not  only 
allegiance  to  the  Union,  but  allegiance  also  to  the  states  in  which  they  re 
side."  There  can  be  no  conflict  between  the  state  and  Federal  allegiance  of 
the  citizen.  The  two  allegiances  constitute  but  one  whole  fealty  and  faith. 
This  is  the  Democratic  doctrine  also.  That  party  never  faltered  in  the  asser 
tion  or  in  the  acceptance  of  all  its  logical  conclusions.  But  how  long  did 
the  Republican  party  adhere  to  it?  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  the  last  days  of  his 
life-time,  and  Mr.  Seward  after  him,  were  sadly  in  the  minority  in  their 
states  rights  views. 

The  states  must  ever  exist.  Not  one  could  suicide  or  die,  without 
bringing  mortality  upon  all.  Such  mortality  can  come  solely,  either  by 
overpowering  force,  or  a  voluntary  abandonment  by  all  the  states  of  the  exist 
ing  Federal  compact.  —  "  No  new  state  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  any  other  state,"  so  say  the  people  of  the  United  States  in 
their  Constitution.  How  can  this  decree  be  repealed?  Only  by  revolution. 
True,  it  is  possible  to  suppose  a  voluntary  abandonment  by  the  people  of 
their  present  form  of  government.  But  would  not  that  be  revolution  ?  This 
possibility  is  foreign  to  any  argument  that  admits  the  excellence  of  our  pres 
ent  form  of  government.  Mr.  Howe  was  arguing  from  the  Constitution, 
hence  his  ridicule  of  states  rights  could  only  reflect  upon  his  own  argu 
ment.  Speaking  from  the  Constitution,  the  question  may  be  asked  :  Must 
Massachusetts  always  be  a  state  of  the  Union  ?  She  must.  No  new  state 
can  be  formed  or  erected  within  her  jurisdiction.  She  must  always  be  and 
be  known  as  "Massachusetts."  We  will  never  be  without  that  common 
wealth.  She  is  one  of  the  old  states.  It  is  "  new  states"  that  can  come 
into  the  Union,  —  not  old  states,  for  they  cannot  get  out  of  the  Union. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


THE    DOCTRINE   OF    STATE    VITALITY. 

A  TEST  OF  POSITIONS  IN  DEB  ATE  —  SENATOR  JOHNSON  TRIUMPHANTLY  AN 
SWERS  SENATOR  HOWE— THE  SENATOR  IN  THE  ARENA  WITH  THE  LOGICAL 
RAPIER  — THE  SOCRATIC  METHOD  OF  JOHNSON  —  HOWE'S  COOL  PARRIES 
AND  JOHNSON'S  KEENER  THRUSTS  —  THE  SCENE  IN  THE  SENATE  COM 
PARED  WITH  THE  WARREN  HASTINGS  TRIAL  — THE  IMMORTALITY  OF 
THE  STATES  — SECESSION  ORDINANCES  VOID  — NOT  WAR,  BUT  INSURREC 
TION  —  THE  FEELING  SOUTH  —  WAS  PROBATION  NECESSARY  ?  —  NORTHERN 
APPREHENSIONS  —  WAR  RESULTS  SAFE  —  NEGRO  ENFRANCHISEMENT  —  THE 
BALLOT  INEVITABLE  —  PARTISANSHIP  PILLORIED  —  THE  CONSTITUTION  AS 
THE  PALLADIUM  OF  THE  NORTH  AND  SOUTH. 

THE  author  has,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  set  forth  the  views,  re 
spectively,  of  the  two  great  political  parties  in  regard  to  the  policy 
of  the  war  for  the  Union.  In  the  Second  Decade  of  this  volume, 
the  issues  growing  out  of  that  war  in  regard  to  the  relations  of  the 
victorious  to  the  vanquished  states,  constitute  the  great  theme  for  debate  and 
congressional  settlement.  For  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  reader  to  get  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  positions  taken  by  the  same  parties  in  regard  to 
those  issues,  the  author  has  selected  one  debate  in  the  Senate  between  dis 
tinguished  representatives  of  the  two  parties.  A  few  extracts  from  it,  and 
a  few  comments  on  the  arguments,  will  be  sufficient  for  that  purpose. 
The  leading  contestants  in  this  debate,  after  which  there  were  so  many 
similitudes,  were  two  Senators  of  very  different  types.  The  Senator  from 
Wisconsin,  Timothy  O.  Howe,  was  a  man  of  the  New  England  style.  He 
was  born  in  Livermore,  Maine,  and  was  an  admirable  judge  —  less  advo 
cate  than  judge.  He  was  slow  in  speech  and  almost  melancholy  in  manner. 
He  seemed  to  be  fatigued  at  the  end  of  every  sentence.  He  was  of  the 
same  class  of  the  genus  homo  as  William  H.  Seward  and  Simon  Cameron. 
He  was  tall  and  thin,  pallid  as  death,  and  immobile  in  his  restful  and  unim- 
passioned  habitudes.  How  unlike  the  sturdy  and  fervid  Marylander,  Rev- 
erdy  Johnson,  who  so  triumphantly  replied  to  his  dialectics.  The  willowy, 
dilatory  mode  of  the  one  was  in  contrast  with  the  sturdy  robustness  of  the 


THE  SECEDING  STATES  ON  TRIAL.  355 

other.  The  voice  of  Senator  Howe  was  not  resonant.  He  spoke  as  if  he  were 
exhausted.  Reverdy  Johnson's  elocution,  albeit  trained  in  the  solemn  hush 
and  reclusiveness  of  the  Supreme  Court,  was  loud,  orotund,  and  defiant. 
What  a  venerable  English  form  the  latter  had  ;  what  a  peculiar  eye,  which  in 
after  years  became  sightless  ;  what  an  expressive  mouth  and  form.  His  por 
trait  in  the  Attorney-General's  office  is  quite  unlike  the  original,  except 
in  a  certain  artistic  repose.  The  writer  remembers  these  Senators  with  a 
social  pleasure,  derived  from  a  knowledge  of  their  remarkable  and  genial 
qualities.  Other  men  have  been  more  praised  than  Timothy  O.  Howe, 
—  the  Postmaster-General  under  President  Hayes ;  but  other  men  never 
deserved  more  encomium  than  he  from  his  side  in  this  great  argument.  But 
when  the  Maryland  Senator  brought  his  interrogative  skill  into  the  arena, 
his  rapier  pierced  the  heart  of  the  contention  at  every  thrust.  The  parry 
ing  of  the  Wisconsin  Senator  was  adroit,  but  the  cunning  of  fence  and  the 
courage  of  conviction  of  the  Marylander  were  resistless. 

To  complete  the  surroundings  of  such  a  momentous  contest,  one  would 
wish  for  the  picturesque  pencil  of  Macaulay.  There  is  no  equal  for  graphic 
style  of  that  scene  in  the  High  Court  of  Parliament,  when  the  peers  sat  in  the 
great  hall  of  William  Rufus  "to  try  an  Englishman  for  tyranny  over  the 
holy  city  of  Benares,  and  over  the  ladies  of  the  princely  house  of  Oude  !  " 
True,  no  such  garniture  of  traditions  had  gathered  about  the  new  Senate 
Chamber.  There  was  no  military  or  civic  pomp  ;  no  avenues  lined  with 
grenadiers ;  no  peers  robed  in  velvet  and  ermine  ;  no  judges  in  the  vest 
ments  of  state,  or  earl-marshals  and  princely  personages,  resplendent  with 
golden  cordons  and  knightly  orders.  Our  freshly-decorated  Senate  Chamber 
was  not  hung  with  scarlet.  Its  colored  lights  from  the  ceiling  shed  a 
garish,  not  a  dim  religious  radiance  upon  the  prevailing  drab  of  the  walls. 
From  the  galleries,  in  eager  interest,  leaned  forward  forms  of  female  grace, 
companies  of  soldiers  in  undress  uniforms,  and  citizens  who  served  in  the 
departments.  Here  and  there,  mingling  in  the  crowded  audience,  were  seen 
colored  men,  —  their  heads  crisp  with  Numidian  curl,  "  but  dazed  with  the 
recondite  issue  and  scene  !  "  Fox  and  Sheridan, —  the  British  Demosthenes 
and  Hyperides ;  Burke  and  Windham ;  and  supreme  above  all,  Hastings 
himself,  give  human  interest  to  the  picture  which  glows  in  Macaulay's  page. 
But  here  in  our  Senate  House,  the  fate,  the  condition,  the  contumacy,  and 
the  so-called  crime  of  many  republics  is  in  grand  inquest.  The  writer  clearly 
recalls  the  scene  of  that  eleventh  of  January,  one  and  twenty  years  ago. 
Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  since  eminent  at  home  and 
abroad,  flock  to  the  Senate  to  hear  Senator  Johnson  reply  to  the  superb 
speech  made  the  day  before  by  the  Wisconsin  Senator ;  and  of  which  the 
essence  of  its  argument  has  been  given  in  the  preceding  chapter.  The 
prayer  is  offered ;  the  journal  is  read ;  petitions,  reports,  bills,  and  a  dull 
debate  about  assessors  are  listened  to  impatiently.  Some  words  from  Senator 


356  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Anthony  are  heard,  and  remarks  from  Sumner,  Fessenden,  Trumbull,  Doo- 
little,  Grimes,  and  others  about  the  Paris  Exposition  ;  and  then  a  vote  is  had 
on  the  latter.  Now,  a  sharp  rap  is  heard  from  the  president  pro  tempore, 
Lafayette  Foster.  He  calls  up  the  great  problem  of  the  provisional  govern 
ments  and  of  the  vitality  of  the  states.  The  reporters  sharpen  their  pencils, 
and  the  Senators  settle  themselves  in  their  chairs.  They  are  all  intent  to 
catch  each  syllable.  Upon  the  left  of  the  chair  sit  the  few  Democrats  remain 
ing  in  this  august  body.  Observe  the  keen,  intellectual,  close-shaven  face  of 
Buckalew,  of  Pennsylvania  ;  the  suave  expression  which  marks  the  handsome 
countenance  of  Hendricks,  of  Indiana  ;  the  unmistakable  pioneer  and  reck 
less  air  of  Nesmith,  of  Oregon ;  the  small  but  defiant  figure  of  Garrett 
Davis,  of  Kentucky  ;  the  debonair  Stockton,  of  New  Jersey  ;  and  the  solid 
solemnity  of  Guthrie,  of  Kentucky.  These  are  about  all  of  the  regulars  of 
the  old  party  present.  They  constitute  about  one-tenth  of  the  seated  Sena 
tors.  But  what  new  Senators  are  these,  now  anxiously  waiting  to  hear  the 
accents  of  the  grand  Marylander?  Doolittle,  Gratz  Brown,  Dixon,  Cowan, 
and  Trumbull,  all  rare  and  accomplished  in  debate,  soon  to  become  giants  of 
those  fierce  and  fervent  days  of  discussion.  They  are  ready  to  accept  the 
new  situation,  as  champions  of  Andrew  Johnson's  administration,  for  the 
unimpaired  energy  of  statehood. 

What  an  array  upon  the  other  side !  Chandler,  Lot  Morrill,  Poland, 
Nye,  Pomeroy,  Sprague,  Williams,  Yates,  Ramsay,  Henderson,  Wilson, 
Fessenden,  and  Sumner,  like  Jove  "  above  them  all,  by  his  great  looks,  and 
power  imperial."  Others  there  are,  who  are  inconsiderable  as  dust,  in  the 
balances  of  debate.  The  Lanes  of  Indiana  and  Kansas,  —  genii  of  that  day 
of  weird  Western  politics,  —  McDougall,  of  California,  and  Saulsbury,  of 
Delaware,  twin  relics  of  that  hour  of  excitement,  —  these  are  absent.  Rough 
Ben  Wade  and  courtly  John  Sherman  soon  come  in,  and  Ohio,  through 
them,  gives  heed  to  the  utterances  of  the  logical  and  leading  member  of  the 
reconstruction  committee. 

There  are  many  debates  on  these  reconstruction  questions.  Many  might 
be  chosen  to  bring  out  the  salient  points,  but  they  would  not  answer  the 
author's  purpose  as  well  as  this  one.  They  cover  thousands  of  pages  of 
the  legislative  records.  They  evince  patriotism  and  partisanship,  loyalty 
and  learning,  enthusiasm  and  eloquence.  Indeed,  never  were  contests  be 
tween  embattled  armies  more  thrilling  than  these  debates  in  the  legislative 
arena.  Throughout,  whether  in  the  House  or  the  Senate,  two  lines  of  argu 
ment,  determined  by  opposite  views  of  constitutional  construction,  are  faith 
fully  pursued, —  one  line  by  the  orators  of  one  party,  the  other  by  the  orators 
of  the  other  party.  The  Democrats  are  always  upholding  the  Constitution 
as  a  grant  of  limited  powers,  with  indestructible,  reserved  rights  remain 
ing  in  the  states  and  people  of  the  Union.  The  Republicans  are  holding, 
in  effect,  the  same  doctrine  for  a  time  of  peace ;  but  another  one  for 


PARTY  POSITIONS  ON  RECONSTRUCTION. 

a  time  of  insurrection.  In  the  latter  condition,  the  Republicans  would  sus 
pend  the  constitutional  provisions,  and  make  them  inoperative  at  the  will  of 
the  National  Legislature.  Both  parties  are  undoubtedly  acting  with  unfalter 
ing  loyalty  to  the  Union ;  and  neither  is,  at  any  time,  entirely  free  from  the 
dangerous  spirit  of  partisanship.  Naturally  this  spirit  most  exhibits  itself  in 
the  dominant  party,  when  the  war  has  ceased  with  the  defeat  of  secession. 
Power  is  never  willingly  surrendered. 

The  debate  between  Senators  Howe  and  Johnson  was  conducted  entirely 
as  upon  a  constitutional  question.  Mr.  Johnson's  reply  was  a  masterly 
elucidation.  It  set  forth  the  Democratic  doctrine  respecting  the  constitu 
tional  status  of  the  states  that  had  attempted  to  secede  from  the  Union.  He 
commenced  by  defining  the  Republican  position,  as  follows  : 

"  I  understand  the  honorable  member  from  Wisconsin  to  say  that  the  effect 
of  the  hostilities  which  we  have  been  carrying  on  to  suppress  the  insurrec 
tion  in  certain  of  the  states  where  it  has  prevailed  for  some  four  years,  is  to 
extinguish  altogether  the  states  as  such,  and  to  reduce  the  territory  of  which 
those  states  were  composed  at  the  time  when  the  insurrection  broke  out  to 
the  condition  of  territories,  and  to  subject  the  people  of  those  states  to  be 
governed  under  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  gives  to  Congress  the 
power  to  govern  the  territories,  or  upon  the  ground  that  they  may  have  been 
conquered  by  the  United  States,  and  that  the  power  to  govern  is  to  be  im 
plied  from  the  right  of  conquest  when  the  conquest  is  completed." 

To  this  Mr.  Howe  replied  :  "If  the  honorable  Senator  is  simply  stating 
what  he  understands  to  be  the  effect  of  my  argument,  I  cannot  object  to  it ; 
but  if  he  understood  me  to  say  that  the  purpose  for  which  we  prosecuted  this 
war  was  to  extinguish  those  states,  he  misunderstood  me." 

Mr.  JOHNSON  :  u  I  have  not  so  stated.  I  did  not  understand  the  honor 
able  member  as  saying  that  the  purpose  for  which  the  war  was  prosecuted, 
but  that  the  result  of  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  was  to  reduce  those  states  to 
the  condition  of  territories.  It  is  to  that  proposition  — " 

Mr.  HOWE  :  "If  the  honorable  Senator  will  pardon  me  for  one  mo 
ment,  my  position  was  not  that  the  result  of  the  prosecution  of  the  war  was 
to  reduce  the  states  to  territories,  but  that  they  assumed  the  legal  character  of 
territories  by  reason  of  their  own  acts,  independent  of  the  war.  They  de 
stroyed  the  state  organizations,  not  we." 

Mr.  JOHNSON  :     "  I  so  understood  you." 

Mr.  HOWE  :  "  And  the  effect  of  the  war  was  simply  to  reduce  them  to 
obedience  to  the  United  States,  to  be  governed  by  such  instrumentalities  as 
the  Constitution  has  provided." 

Mr.  JOHNSON  :  "I  am  sure  I  have  not  misapprehended  the  Senator.  It 
would  have  been  very  difficult  for  any  one  to  misapprehend  him,  for  he  was 
exceedingly  lucid  in  everything  he  said.  It  may  be  possible  that  I  may  fail 
to  explain  what  I  understand  to  have  been  his  propositions,  and  if  I  should 


358  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

do  so  in  any  part  of  the  remarks  I  am  about  to  make,  I  hope  the  honorable 
Senator  will  set  me  right." 

Here  Mr.  Johnson  entered  into  the  discussion  of  the  question  as  to  the 
effect  of  the  war  itself.  First. — Did  it  reduce  the  states  to  the  condition  of 
territories?  Second. — If  this  was  not  its  effect,  was  that  effect  produced  by 
any  conduct  upon  the  part  of  the  citizens  residing  within  the  limits  of  those 
states? — As  shown  above,  Mr.  Howe  had  put  himself  on  the  affirmative 
side  of  the  latter  question. —  "  No  member  of  the  Senate,"  said  Mr.  John 
son,  "  is  now  to  learn  that  there  is  no  power  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  given  to  Congress,  or  any  other  department  of  the  government,  to 
declare  or  carry  on  a  war  against  any  state.  The  power  to  declare  war, 
devolved  upon  Congress  by  the  eighth  section  of  the  first  article,  is  a  power 
evidently  looking  to  a  war  between  the  United  States  and  a  foreign  nation." 
He  held  that  the  power  to  protect  the  United  States,  or  a  state,  by  military 
force  against  insurrection  was  a  different  power  from  that  given  to  Congress 
for  protection  against  foreign  invasion.  "  If,"  said  he,  "  there  could  be  any 
doubt,  looking  to  the  character  of  the  government,  that  such  is  the  limita 
tion  of  the  war  power,  that  doubt  would  be  removed  by  the  fact  that  there 
is  in  another  part  of  the  same  section  a  provision  which  looks  to  the  carry 
ing  on  of  such  a  contest  as  the  one  in  which  we  have  just  been  engaged." 
He  denied  that  there  had  been  any  exercise  of  the  war  power  of  the  govern 
ment  in  quelling  the  late  insurrection.  The  power  which  had  been  exercised 
was  granted  in  the  same  section  in  express  terms,  namely,  in  that  which 
provided  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
and  suppress  insurrection.  The  latter  he  regarded  as  a  police  power.  No 
conquest,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  could  be  achieved  under  this  police 
power.  It  could  extinguish  no  existing  institution  in  any  state,  and  cer 
tainly  it  was  not  intended  to  destroy  any  state  in  which  it  might  be  exer 
cised.  He  enforced  this  view  by  a  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  the  con 
stitutional  convention.  It  had  been  suggested  in  those  proceedings  that  Con 
gress  should  have  the  authority  to  make  war  against  a  state.  This  propo 
sition  was  repudiated  as  fatal  to  the  government  by  two  leaders  of  that  body 
of  mighty  men,  Hamilton  and  Madison.  They  both  denied  that,  as  far  as 
the  convention  had  proceeded  at  that  time,  any  such  authority  was  given  to 
Congress,  and  they  protested  against  the  propriety  of  conferring  any  such 
power.  It  was  never  conferred. 

The  question  of  the  national  war  powers  had  been  before  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  recent  Prize  cases.  The  opinion  in  these 
had  been  very  much  relied  upon  as  maintaining  in  part  the  doctrine  for  which 
the  Republican  party  contended.  Mr.  Justice  Grier,  in  delirering  the  opin 
ion  of  the  Court  in  these  cases,  had  used  this  language  : 

"  By  the  Constitution,  Congress  alone  has  the  power  to  declare  a  national 
or  foreign  war.  It  cannot  declare  war  against  a  state,  or  any  number  of 


WERE  THE   SECESSION  ORDINANCES  VALID?  359 

states,  by  virtue  of  any  clause  in  the  Constitution.  The  Constitution  confers 
on  the  President  the  whole  executive  power.  He  is  bound  to  take  care  that 
the  laws  be  faithfully  executed.  He  is  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the  several  states,  when 
called  into  the  actual  service  of  the  United  States.  He  has  no  power  to  ini 
tiate  or  declare  war  either  against  a  foreign  nation  or  a  domestic  state.  But 
by  the  acts  of  Congress  of  Feb.  28,  1795,  and  of  March  3,  1807,  ne  '1S 
authorized  to  call  out  the  militia  and  use  the  military  and  naval  forces  of  the 
United  States,  in  case  of  invasion  by  foreign  nations,  and  to  suppress  insur 
rection  against  the  government  of  a  state,  or  of  the  United  States."  The 
same  doctrine  was  held  by  the  minority  in  the  dissenting  opinion  delivered 
by  Mr.  Justice  Nelson,  who  said :  "  The  acts  of  1795  and  1807  did  not,  and 
could  not,  under  the  Constitution,  confer  on  the  President  the  power  of  de 
claring  war  against  a  state  of  this  Union." 

This  language  gave  full  support  to  Mr.  Johnson's  position.  He  logically 
drew  the  conclusion  that  when  the  insurrection  had  been  suppressed  by  the 
exercise  of  the  police  power,  there  could  be  no  justification  for  its  further 
exercise  ;  for,  said  he,  "  To  carry  on  a  war  against  a  state  in  which  there  is  no 
insurrection  is  a  simple  absurdity."  It  must  be  plain  to  every  reader  of  the 
Constitution  that  Mr.  Johnson's  position  was  correct.  That  instrument  pro 
vides  for  "  war"  and  "  insurrection  "  as  ;/wo  distinct  calamities  to  which  the 
people  of  the  United  States  would  be  liable.  War  is  "  declared"  between 
independent  nations  under  the  sanction  of  their  sovereign  power.  It  is  of 
two  sorts ;  offensive,  and  defensive.  Insurrection,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a 
rebellious  rising  against  the  established  civil  authority  of  a  nation  or  state ; 
an  active  opposition  to  the  execution  of  its  laws  by  armed  force.  The  sup 
pression  of  an  insurrection  is  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  state,  not  of 
destroying  it. 

Having  demonstrated  that  there  was  no  constitutional  authority  for  the 
national  government  to  carry  on  a  war  against  the  states,  and  no  authority 
to  exercise  the  power  to  suppress  insurrection  for  the  purpose  of  destroying 
any  state,  Mr.  Johnson  addressed  himself  to  the  second  part  of  the  ques 
tion  under  discussion,  namely,  —  that  in  which  the  Republicans  claimed  that 
because  of  the  action  of  the  people  the  insurrectionary  states  had  fallen  into 
the  condition  of  territories,  and  were  therefore  subject  to  be  governed  by 
rules  to  be  prescribed  by  Congress.  Here  Mr.  Johnson  showered  the  Re 
publicans  with  interrogative  argument.  Was  the  sovereignty  of  these  states 
at  an  end?  If  so,  on  what  ground?  Was  it  because  the  people  had  passed 
ordinances  of  secession  and  attempted  to  enforce  them  against  the  national 
authority  ?  Was  it  because  we  had  acquired  any  right  of  conquest  in  sup 
pressing  that  attempt.  Were  these  ordinances  valid  ?  Had  they  any  legal 
operation  whatever  ?  Did  they  take  any  of  these  states  out  of  the  Union  ? 
Did  they  dissolve  the  connection  to  any  extent,  which  existed  as  between 


360  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

those  states  and  the  Union,  by  force  of  the  Constitution?  If  they  did,  must 
it  not  be  admitted  that  the  ordinances  were  valid  ?  Were  the  states  out,  as  the 
Senator  from  Wisconsin  asserted,  because  their  people  determined  that  they 
should  go  out  ?  Were  they  out,  because  they  declared  by  ordinances  that 
they  were  now  out  ?  Were  they  now  out  because  the  people  were  still  alleged 
to  be  disloyal,  although  the  insurrection  had  been,  in  fact,  suppressed  and  the 
authority  of  the  government  reinstated?  If  the  ordinances  were  void,  con 
tinued  Mr.  Johnson,  they  could  not  take  the  states  out.  If  the  citizens  had 
not  a  right  to  be  disloyal,  their  disloyalty  could  not  put  them  out.  If,  not 
withstanding  the  ordinances,  the  states  were  as  much  in  the  Union  on  the 
day  after  they  were  passed  as  on  the  day  before,  and  if,  after  the  ordinances 
were  adopted  and  hostilities  were  being  carried  on,  their  citizens  had  no 
more  right  to  be  disloyal  than  they  had  before  hostilities  commenced,  then 
they  were  just  as  much  in  the  Union  after  the  insurrection  as  they  were 
before  it.  No  Senator  would  admit  that  an  ordinance  of  secession  had  any 
validity  whatever.  If  it  was  valid  in  any  state,  then  the  North  was  the  ag 
gressor,  and  the  suppression  of  secession  was,  on  its  part,  a  great  crime. 
Admit  the  validity  of  any  ordinance  of  secession,  and  it  follows  that  the 
Unionists  were  traitors  to  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution,  and  not  those 
who,  exercising  the  right  of  secession,  had  attempted  to  separate  themselves 
from  the  Union. 

What  answer  could  be  made  to  this  argumentation?  None.  Even  in 
this  condensed  form  Mr.  Johnson's  argument  must  appear  unanswerable  to 
the  unprejudiced  reader.  Every  Senator  held  that  the  Constitution  not  only 
confers  no  right  of  separation,  but  it  imposes  an  obligation  upon  every  citi 
zen,  in  every  state,  to  maintain  the  Union,  no  matter  what  may  be  his  con 
duct  or  the  conduct  of  his  fellow-citizens.  Every  Senator  held  that  every 
citizen  in  the  Southern  States  was  at  all  times  bound  by  this  obligation.  It 
must  follow,  therefore,  that  the  ordinances  of  secession  were  absolutely  void. 
They  had  no  more  effect  to  sever  the  connection  of  those  states,  and  the  peo 
ple  of  those  states,  with  the  government  of  the  Union,  than  if  they  had  been 
passed  by  a  foreign  nation.  Mr.  Johnson  conclusively  proved  that  while  the 
citizen  who  takes  part  in  insurrection  may  fall  under  the  ban  of  the  law,  no 
acts  of  citizens  who  take  part  in  an  unsuccessful  insurrection  can  overthow 
the  previous  order  of  the  government  or  erase  one  word  from  its  Constitu 
tion.  With  a  view  to  show  how  naturally  the  Republicans  themselves  had, 
in  their  war  legislation,  acted  on  the  principles  for  which  he  thus  contended, 
Mr.  Johnson  called  attention  to  vertain  laws  which  had  been  passed  with  the 
unanimous  concurrence  of  both  branches  of  Congress  since  hostility  had 
been  flagrant  between  the  sections,  in  which  the  seceded  states  were  recog 
nized  as  still  remaining  in  the  Union,  subject  to  constitutional  legislation. 
On  the  5th  of  August,  1861,  there  was  passed  the  act  entitled  "  An  Act  to 
provide  increased  revenue  from  imports,  to  pay  interest  on  the  public  debt, 


CONGRESSIONAL  DENIAL  OF  DISUNION.  361 

and  for  other  purposes."  The  eighth  section  imposed  a  direct  tax  of  twenty 
million  dollars,  and  apportioned  it  among  the  several  states,  as  provided  in 
the  Constitution.  To  all  the  seceded  states  were  apportioned  their  quotas  in 
like  proportion  with  the  others.  In  consequence  of  the  impracticability  of 
collecting  this  direct  tax  in  the  insurrectionary  states,  a  special  provision  was 
made  by  the  act  of  June  7th,  following,  for  the  collection  of  the  quotas  of 
those  states.  They  were  directed  to  be  apportioned  and  charged  in  each 
state  and  territory,  or  part  thereof,  wherein  the  civil  authority  was  then 
obstructed,  upon  all  the  lands  and  lots  of  ground  situated  therein  respect 
ively.  Going  back  of  these  acts,  Mr.  Johnson  cited  the  proclamation  of 
President  Lincoln  which  declared  that  the  citizens  in  certain  states  were  in 
rebellion,  that  the  ports  within  the  limits  of  certain  states  would  be  closed, 
and  that  the  laws  were  obstructed  by  persons  claiming  to  act  under  the  au 
thority  of  those  states.  He  quoted,  also,  the  act  of  July  13,  1861,  in  which 
it  is  said  that  when  the  insurgents  claimed  to  act  under  the  authority  of  any 
state  or  states,  and  such  claim  was  not  disclaimed  or  repudiated  by  the  per 
sons  exercising  the  functions  of  government  in  such  state  or  states,  it  would 
be  lawful  for  the  President,  by  proclamation,  to  declare  that  the  inhabitants 
of  any  such  state  are  "  in  a  state  of  insurrection  against  the  United  States  "  ; 
and  that  thereupon  all  commercial  intercourse,  by  and  between  the  same  and 
the  citizens  of  the  other  states  of  the  United  States,  should  cease  and  be  un 
lawful.  Mr.  Johnson  cited  the  orders  issued  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  1862 
and  in  1865,  by  which  the  justices  were  assigned  to  the  several  judicial  cir 
cuits,  including  the  fourth  and  fifth  circuits,  composed  of  the  states  which 
claimed  to  have  seceded.  If  the  seceded  states  were  territories,  then  the  Su 
preme  Court  could  have  no  circuit  in  them,  for  states  only  constitute  its  cir 
cuits.  Here,  while  insurrection  was  flagrant  in  the  South,  was  a  direct  re 
cognition  by  every  branch  of  the  Federal  Government,  legislative,  executive 
and  judicial,  that  the  constitutional  union  of  the  states  still  remained.  The 
Republicans  had  been  left  no  constitutional  ground  to  stand  upon  by  Mr. 
Johnson  when  he  concluded  his  reply.  The  argument  ab  inconvenienti  of 
Senator  Howe  against  admitting  the  South  to  its  rightful  constitutional  repre 
sentation  in  Congress  was  all  that  was  left  to  them.  Who  will  not  now 
regret  that  partisanship  should  have  fallen  so  low  as  to  have  resorted  to  such 
a  desperate  argument  ?  What  patriot  will  not  blush  that  it  was  successful, 
even  in  that  ordeal  of  our  institutions  ? 

The  author  by  no  means  intends  to  ignore  the  real  difficulty  of  the  pecu 
liar  status  of  the  Southern  States  at  the  time  of  this  debate.  While  holding 
that  at  the  very  moment  that  these  states  were  unquestionably  entitled,  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  resume  their  Federal  relations,  he 
admits  that  much  of  the  difficulty  must  be  attributed  to  the  Southern  people 
themselves.  Human  nature,  with  its  passions  and  prejudices,  is  stronger 
than  any  law,  written  or  unwritten.  We  had  just  emerged  from  an  inter- 

23 


362  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

necine  war.  It  had  stained  every  hearth-stone  in  the  land  with  brothers' 
blood.  That  the  animosities  engendered  by  this  struggle  did  not  soon  dis 
appear,  is  no  more  than  could  reasonably  be  expected.  There  was  a  natural 
aversion  in  the  North  to  any  immediate  settlement  of  Federal  relations  that 
would  admit  into  the  direction  of  national  affairs  men  who  had  exhausted  the 
whole  power  of  the  South  in  that  long  and  desperate  contest.  It  was  im 
practicable  to  indict  or  punish,  by  process  of  law,  a  whole  people  for  engag 
ing  in  that  struggle.  Whether  the  United  States  Government  was  or  was 
not  estopped  from  such  a  mode  of  punishment  by  having  conducted  the  war 
as  against  a  belligerent  power,  it  was  impossible,  under  our  judicial  system, 
to  bring  the  offenders  to  trial  in  any  judicial  district  where  the  juries  them 
selves  were  not  equally  amenable  before  the  law.  The  Southern  people 
did  not  feel  that  they  had  committed  any  crime.  They  regarded  their  resist 
ance  to  the  Federal  authority  as  a  rightful  act.  They  held  it  to  be  patriot 
ism  and  self-defense.  So  feeling,  and  if  allowed  to  exercise  their  constitu 
tional  right  to  be  represented  in  the  national  Congress  the  moment  their 
armed  resistance  had  ceased,  how  would  their  Senators  and  Representatives 
have  acted  ?  Would  their  course  have  tended  to  reconcile  the  lately  warring 
sections  ?  Would  it  have  had  the  effect  of  defeating  the  results  of  the  war  ? 
These  questions  suggest  the  gravity  of  the  situation  at  that  time.  That 
gravity  consisted  more  in  the  fact  that  the  people  of  the  South,  almost  in 
mass,  still  believed  that  their  cause  was  just.  It  is  now,  and  was  then,  the 
belief  of  the  writer  that  our  government  was  pledged,  in  its  conduct  of  the 
war,  to  that  course  which  would,  on  the  moment  the  hostilities  terminated, 
take  immediate  steps  for  the  complete  extension  of  the  Federal  relations  to 
all  parts  of  the  Union,  under  conditions  of  generous  and  not  grudging  am 
nesty.  It  was  these  relations  that  were  destroyed,  and  not  the  existence  of 
sovereign  states.  It  was  these  relations  which  were  involved  in  the  insurrec 
tion.  The  Crittenden  resolutions,  adopted  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
on  July  22,  1861,  with  but  two  dissenting  votes,  and  afterwards  in  the  Sen 
ate  by  a  vote  of  thirty  to  five,  pledged  the  national  faith  to  this  course  in 
these  words  :  "  That  this  war  is  not  prosecuted  upon  our  part  in  any  spirit 
of  oppression,  nor  for  any  purpose  of  conquest  or  subjugation,  nor  purpose 
of  overthrowing  or  interfering  with  the  rights  and  established  institutions  of 
those  states,  but  to  defend  and  maintain  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution 
and  all  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  to  preserve  the  Union,  with 
all  the  dignity,  equality,  and  rights  of  the  several  states  unimpaired ;  that  as 
soon  as  these  objects  are  accomplished  the  war  ought  to  cease." 

Mr.  Howe  had  voted  for  this  resolution.  Did  it  admit  the  doctrine  of 
valid  secession  or  sfate  felo-de-se?  The  object  "  to  defend  and  maintain  the 
supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  all  laws  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  to  pre 
serve  the  Union,"  could  not  be  effected  while  the  dominant  political  party  of 


PRESIDENT  LINCOLN'S  THEORY  OF  THE  WAR.  363 

the  country  was  refusing  to  recognize  as  unimpaired  the  dignity,  equality, 
and  rights  of  the  late  insurrectionary  states. 

The  Democratic  party  was  loyal  to  this  resolution  throughout  the  war. 
The  hand-writing  of  Mr.  Crittenden  in  that  historic  document  is  as  familiar 
to  the  eye  of  the  writer  as  if  it  were  the  face  of  an  old  friend.  He  was 
elected  upon  its  principles  in  1862,  in  the  midst  of  the  war  and  by  a  Repub 
lican  district.  Its  principles  were  understood  to  be  Mr.  Lincoln's  cautious 
shibboleth.  It  was  because  of  its  essential  loyalty  to  the  Union  and  Consti 
tution  that  the  Democratic  party  was  anxious  at  all  times  during  the  war  to 
propose  or  accept  terms  of  compromise  looking  to  the  restoration  of  the 
Union.  But  it  never  did  nor  would  consent  to  a  disruption  of  the  Union. 
The  Democratic  party  did  not  support  the  war  for  the  purpose  of  destroying 
slavery,  nor  with  a  view  to  obtain  and  retain  control  of  the  government.  It 
would  at  any  time  have  embraced  the  u  Union  as  it  was,"  and  let  slavery 
disappear,  as  it  must  necessarily  have  done,  in  the  peaceful  mode  by  which 
the  advance  of  liberal  ideas  would  have  brought  about  emancipation. 

Many  good  me#i,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  feared  to  trust  the  South  with  its 
rightful  constitutional  power  when  the  Civil  War  terminated.  It  was  feared 
that  its  power  would  be  exercised  to  defeat,  as  far  as  possible,  the  results  of 
the  war.  It  might  bring  ruin  to  our  financial  system.  It  might  lead  to  the 
repudiation  of  the  national  debts  and  the  just  claims  of  those  who  had  given 
up  their  blood  and  treasure  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Union.  This  appre 
hension  gave  great  strength  to  the  Republican  party  during  the  protracted 
period  of  reconstruction.  It  was  easy  for  the  selfishness  of  partisan 
ship  to  exaggerate  the  dangers  that  would  ensue  if  a  period  of  probation,  or 
purgation,  was  not  passed  through  by  those  who  had  "  sought  to  destroy  the 
Union."  But  there  were  men  of  undoubted  loyalty  who  had  no  fear  of  any 
evil  results  from  the  immediate  restoration  of  Federal  relations.  Suppose 
the  South  had  been  at  once  admitted  to  representation  in  Congress  ?  Would 
that  section  have  been  able  to  destroy  any  legitimate  object  for  which  the 
national  government  had  contended  in  the  struggle  ?  Certainly  not.  In  such 
case,  if  the  South  had  not  accepted  amnesty  as  freely  and  in  as  good  faith 
as  it  was  offered  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  she  would  soon  have 
found  herself  in  a  minority  so  small  as  to  leave  her  nothing  else  to  do  than 
to  honestly  accept  the  results  of  the  war.  There  would,  if  the  South  re 
mained  sullen,  soon  be,  as  practically  there  was  during  the  early  part  of 
the  war,  but  one  party  in  the  North. 

Extreme  partisanship  always  defeats  itself.  It  ruled  during  the  period  of 
reconstruction  following  the  close  of  armed  hostilities.  Had  not  the  domi 
nant  party  an  overweening,  and  many  of  them  a  malicious  desire  to  perpetu 
ate  their  power,  no  such  chaos  would  have  come  to  mark  that  period.  It  is 
this  partisanship  that  deserves  to  be  pilloried  by  patriotic  rebuke.  It  is  not  the 
sincere  fears  that  gave  it  strength.  There  was  indeed  some  apparent  reason 


364  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

for  these  fears  in  the  course  pursued  in  the  South  against  the  colored  people. 
The  emancipation  of  the  slaves  was  one  of  the  legitimate  results  of  the  war. 
What  was  the  legitimate  result  of  emancipation?  Had  not  that  great 
Southerner,  John  C.  Calhoun,  always  said  that  with  emancipation  must 
come  equality  before  the  law  —  civil  and  even  political  rights?  Was  not 
the  latter  result  hastened  by  the  unwisdom  of  extremes?  It  was  extremes 
on  both  sides  that  hastened  the  grant  of  the  franchise  to  a  class  who  were 
unprepared  to  exercise  it.  But  it  was  only  hastened,  for  eventually  the 
South  herself  would  concede  the  franchise  when  it  would  be  more  intelli 
gently  exercised. 

One  of  the  main  difficulties  of  intelligent  discussion  in  respect  to  the 
constitutional  questions  involved  in  secession  and  reconstruction,  is  the  misuse 
of  terms.  Secession  was  not  "  war"  ;  it  was  "  insurrection."  The  effort  for 
its  suppression  had  to  be  made  in  the  mode  of  civilized  warfare,  because  of 
the  force  and  extent  of  the  resistance  to  be  overcome ;  and  because  foreign 
governments  recognized  the  South  as  a  belligerent  power.  But  these  facts 
could  not  affect  the  true  relation  of  the  national  government  to  the  question, 
which  was  simply  one  of  insurrection  and  the  constitutional  requirement 
for  its  suppression. 

Before  closing  this  chapter,  the  writer  takes  a  patriotic  pride  in  being  able 
to  say  that  throughout  the  whole  period  of  civil  war  and  reconstruction,  in 
every  debate  in  the  National  Legislature,  in  every  act  of  the  Executive,  and 
in  every  decision  of  the  Judicial  branch  of  the  government,  there  was  ever  an 
earnest  protestation  of  submission  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
The  worst  excesses  of  partisanship  did  not  dare  to  openly  evade  its  mandates. 
Even  the  South,  which  had  tried  to  dissever  its  Federal  relations,  again 
appealed,  as  it  had  the  right  to  do,  to  the  protection  of  that  palladium  of  their 
government — THE  CONSTITUTION. 


CHAPTER  XX. 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

DIALECTICS  AND  SOPHISTRIES  OF  THE  RADICALS  —  THADDEUS  STEVENS  ASA 
LEADER  —  A  MAN  OF  IRON  —  HIS  TALISMANIC  POWER  —  THE  VICTORS' 
SPOILS  —  PERPETUATION  OF  REPUBLICAN  RULE  — THE  DEAD  STATES  — 
THE  CONSTITUTION  IGNORED  —  THE  LAW  OF  NATIONS  FOR  THE  SOUTH  — 
BELLIGERENT  RULES  IN  PEACE  —  PRIZE  LAW  FOR  THE  STATES  —  UNION  ON 
CONDITION  OF  NEGRO  SUFFRAGE  — THE  RADICAL  FALLACIES  —  THE  FED 
ERAL  GANGLION  —  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CONQUEST  —  CONFISCATION  AND 
CONFEDERATE  DEBTS  —  INDESTRUCTIBILITY  OF  THE  STATES  —  CONSTITU 
TIONAL  RECONSTRUCTION. 

THE  author  was  not  at  first  impressed  with  the  genius  and  ability 
of  Thaddeus  Stevens.  In  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  when  Gov 
ernor  Pennington  was  elected  Speaker  after  a  prolonged  struggle, 
this  Pennsylvanian  of  Vermont  birth  did  not  appear  to  advant 
age.  His  only  effort  in  that  struggle  was  a  motion  of  immaterial  conse 
quence  about  the  deadlock.  He  then  subsided  into  a  seeming  stolid  me 
diocrity.  But  he  was  far  removed  from  mediocrity.  He  had  a  will  of 
audacious  and  intolerant  quality.  His  humor  was  not  like  that  of 
"Ben"  Harden  or  "Tom"  Corwin, —  iridescent  and  genial.  It  smacked 
of  Voltaire.  It  had  lurid  lights.  The  intensity  of  his  hatred  was  only 
next  to  infernal ;  but  he  seldom  indulged  it.  He  never  hated  a  fair  op 
ponent.  He  did  hate,  bitterly,  some  of  his  own  party  who  would  not 
follow  his  doctrine,  and  obliterate  states  in  order  to  territorialize  and  ter 
rorize  them.  He  had  Pluto's  iron  countenance ;  but  he  could  unbend  and 
be  kindly.  His  neighbors  of  all  classes  and  colors  and  of  both  sexes,  in 
and  about  Lancaster  County,  remember  him  as  almost  genial,  notwith 
standing  the  inflexibility  of  his  countenance  and  the  determination  of  his 
character.  He  was,  more  even  than  Judge  Howe  or  Mr.  Sumner,  the 
constructionist  of  the  new  order  and  the  obstructionist  to  the  rebuilding 
of  the  older  order.  In  the  House  of  Representatives,  early  in  the  first  ses 
sion  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  on  the  5th  of  December,  1865,  he  arose 


366  THREt; .DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

to  dictatorship.  He  con:^anded  universal  party  obedience.  That  Congress 
had  great  parliamentary  abi/lty-  It:  had  its  Washburnes,  its  Wilsons,  its 
Binghams,  its  Shellabargers,  a.nd  its  Blaines.  It  had  but  one  Thaddeus 
Stevens.  This  man  was  not  supeiS?^*  He  was  profound.  He  knew  that 
the  times  called  either  for  retrogression-  from  m's  war  policies,  or  else  organic 
and  risky  forwardness.  He  would  not  ask -to  carry  out  the  Constitution.  He 
would,  at  least,  first  amend  it.  How?  Thu^  for  example:  "  Neither  the 
United  States,  nor  any  state  in  the  Union,  shall  ^yer  assume  or  pay  any  part 
of  the  debt  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  oi  AmenC£,  or  of  any-state, 
contracted  to  carry  on  war  with  the  United  States."  On  the  same  day  that 
he  offered  this  he  proposed  the  following  amendment  to  the  Constitution : 
"  Amend  the  ninth  section  of  the  first  article  by  expunging  so  much  thereof 
as  says  :  4  No  tax  or  duty  shall  be  laid  on  articles  exported  from  any  state.' " 
This  was  a  cunning,  tentative  tender  to  his  party.  It  was  to  be  followed 
by  almost  inconceivable  audacities  of  policy  ;  for,  on  the  same  day,  he  moved 
another  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  It  was  this:  "Representatives 
shall  be  apportioned  among  the  states  which  may  be  within  the  Union,  ac 
cording  to  their  respective  legal  voters,  and  for  this  purpose  none  shall  be 
named  as  legal  voters  who  are  not  either  native-born  citizens  or  naturalized 
foreigners.  Congress  shall  provide  for  ascertaining  the  number  of  said  voters. 
A  true  census  of  the  legal  voters  shall  be  taken  at  the  same  time  with  the 
regular  census."  Would  he  stop  hero?  By  no  means.  On  the  same  day 
he  introduced  the  following  amendment :  "  Article  XIII.  All  national  and 
state  laws  shall  be  equally  applicable  to  every  citizen,  and  no  discrimination 
shall  be  made  on  account  of  race  and  color."  All  of  these  proposed  amend 
ments,  except  that  which  was  intended  to  authorize  the  taxation  of  exports, 
have  been  incorporated  into  the  Constitution,  substantially,  though  in  more 
guarded  language.  The  failure  to  adopt  the  proposed  amendment  allowing 
a  tax  on  exports  did  not  prevent  Congress,  however,  from  imposing  a  tax  on 
cotton,  a  product  mostly  raised  for  exportation.  Sixty-seven  millions  of  dol 
lars  of  cotton  taxes  were  collected. 

The  right  to  govern  the  insurgent  states  as  territories,  Mr.  Stevens 
asserted  as  necessary.  Many  curious  logical  difficulties  arose  from  the  ad 
mission  of  that  right.  To  deny  the  right  of  secession  and  to  assert  the 
right  to  suppress  a  rebellion  in  which  the  authorities  in  the  states  are  in 
volved,  and  at  the  same  time  to  concede  to  the  people  of  such  states,  upon 
surrendering  their  arms,  the  right  to  resume  their  position  as  citizens,  with 
all  the  privileges  of  citizens,  would  seem  to  some  minds  to  be  at  least  im 
politic.  But,  admitting  that  the  United  States  Government  has  the  right 
to  maintain  its  authority  against  the  authorities  of  a  state,  or  a  combination 
of  state  authorities,  does  it  follow  that  the  right  to  govern  these  states  as  ter 
ritories  must  be  conceded  to  the  United  States  when  no  insurrection  exists  ? 
The  idea  of  holding,  for  a  generation  perhaps,  any  people,  whether  they 


CAN  CONGRESS  GOVERN  STATES? 


369 


be  citizens  of  revolted  states,  or  foreigners,  under  gove-  D  n  .m  a±y 

forced  upon  them  by  a  power  external  to  them,  is  rer-  'ar7'  to  ^"f^ican 
principles,  to  the  spirit  of  liberty,  and  to  sound  p'  ~n1:  natlons'  °  f°JQ8L  was 
suggested  by  Congress,  or  the  Executive,  whe  Algerents  claims  soto  defend 
and  maintain  the  Union.  But  Mr.  Stevens  states  could  not .  ^motives  that 
actuated  the  defenders  of  the  Union  who  ^  and  t^at  Cession.  That  iron 
man  of  an  iron  state  gave  his  reasons  w:"vl  ua  ^' .  r'.etoric  for  these  amend 
ments.  He  seldom  spoke  at  length/  '  '  Indlvld'i8th  of  December,  1865, 
he  unfolded  with  no  unmusical  iy\lC  '  nSsu2aive  voice  his  audacious,  sweep 
ing,  and  vindictive  policies.  I11  Jtory  demands  its  reproduction,  for  it  pre 
sents  the  whole  architectural  design  of  radical  reconstruction.  He  said  to  the 
listening  House,  taking  the  President's  message  for  his  text : 

"A  candid  examination  of  the  power  and  proper  principle  of  recon 
struction  can  be  offensive  to  no  one,  and  may  possibly  be  profitable  by 
exciting  inquiry.  One  of  the  suggestions  of  the  message  which  we  are 
now  considering  has  special  reference  to  this.  Perhaps  it  is  the  principle 
most  interesting  to  the  people  at  this  time.  The  President  assumes,  what 
no  one  doubts,  that  the  late  rebel  states  have  lost  their  constitutional  re 
lations  to  the  Union,  and  are  incapable  of  representation  in  Congress  ex 
cept  by  permission  of  the  government.  It  matters  but  little,  with  this 
admission,  whether  you  call  them  states  out  of  the  Union,  and  now  con 
quered  territories,  or  assert  that  because  the  Constitution  forbids  them  to 
do  what  they  did  do,  that  they  are  therefore  only  dead  as  to  all  national 
and  political  action,  and  will  remain  so  until  the  government  shall  breathe 
into  them  the  breath  of  life  anew,  and  permit  them  to  occupy  their  for 
mer  position.  In  other  words,  that  they  are  not  out  of  the  Union,  but 
are  only  dead  carcasses  lying  within  the  Uniom.  In  either  case  it  is  very 
plain  that  it  requires  the  action  of  Congress  to  enable  them  to  form  a 
state  government,  and  send  representatives  to  Congress.  Nobody,  I  be 
lieve,  pretends  that  with  their  old  constitutions  and  frames  of  government 
they  can  be  permitted  to  claim  their  old  rights  under  the  Constitution. 
They  have  torn  their  constitutional  states  to  atoms,  and  built  on  their 
foundations  fabrics  of  a  totally  different  character.  Dead  men  cannot 
raise  themselves.  Dead  states  cannot  restore  their  own  existence  *  as  it 
was.'  Whose  especial  duty  is  it  to  do  it  ?  In  whom  does  the  Consti 
tution  place  the  power  ?  Not  in  the  judicial  branch  of  the  government, 
for  it  only  adjudicates,  and  does  not  prescribe  laws.  Not  in  the  execu 
tive,  for  it  only  executes,  and  cannot  make  laws.  Not  in  the  comman- 
der-in-chief  of  the  armies,  for  he  can  only  hold  them  under  military  rule 
until  the  sovereign  legislative  power  of  the  conqueror  shall  give  them 
law. 

tk  There  is  fortunately  no  difficulty  in  solving  the  question.  There  arc  two 
provisions  in  the  Constitution,  under  one  of  which  the  case  must  fall.  The 


366  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

^dictatorship.  !L  '  New  states  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this 
Unioftreat  parliameidorment  this  is  the  controlling  provision  in  this  case. 
Unless  ^s,  its  Shellabar^  is  a  dead  letter,  the  late  war  between  two  ac- 
knowledg'cThis  man  was  not-red  their  original  compacts  and  broke  all  the 
ties  that  boMed  either  for  retrog-.  The  future  condition  of  the  conquered 
power  depends  otT^ss.  He  wouk  conqueror.  They  must  come  in  as  new 
states  or  remain  as  contend  it.  Ho  ces.  Congress  —  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives — wittfe  m  tne  Urn^ence  of  the  President,  is  the  only 
power  that  can  act  in  the  mattel*?^  ferate  br>Ose,  as  some  dreaming  theorists 
imagine,  that  these  states  have  never  beeri^owt  of  the  Union,  but  have  only 
destroyed  their  state  governments,  so  as  to  be  incapable  of  political  action, 
then  the  fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article  applies,  which  says :  '  The 
United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  state  in  this  Union  a  republican  form 
of  government.'  Who  is  the  United  States?  Not  the  Judiciary.  Not 
the  President ;  but  the  sovereign  power  of  the  people,  exercised  through 
their  Representatives  in  Congress,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Executive. 
It  means  the  political  government  —  the  concurrent  action  of  both  branches 
of  Congress  and  the  Executive.  The  separate  action  of  each  amounts  to 
nothing,  either  in  admitting  new  states  or  in  guaranteeing  republican  gov 
ernments  to  lapsed  or  outlawed  states.  Whence  springs  the  preposterous  idea 
that  either  the  President,  or  the  Senate,  or  the  House  of  Representatives, 
acting  separately,  can  determine  the  rights  of  states  to  send  members  or  Sen 
ators  to  the  Congress  of  the  Union?  To  prove  that  they  are,  and  for  four 
years  have  been,  out  of  the  Union  for  all  legal  purposes,  and  being  now  con 
quered,  subject  to  the  absolute  disposal  of  Congress,  I  will  suggest  a  few 
ideas  and  adduce  a  few  authorities." 

Before  citing  these  authorities  Mr.  Stevens  took  the  position  that  the  so- 
called  ''Confederate  States  of  America "  were  either  an  independent  bel 
ligerent  power,  and  were  so  acknowledged  by  the  United  States  and  by 
Europe,  or  else  they  had  assumed  and  maintained  an  attitude  which  entitled 
them  to  be  considered  and  treated  as  a  belligerent  for  four  years.  During 
such  time,  they  were  precisely  in  the  condition  a  foreign  nation  would  be 
with  whom  we  were  at  war.  Their  independence  as  a  nation  need  not  be 
acknowledged  by  us  to  produce  that  effect.  This  was  Mr.  Stevens'  position. 
He  cited  the  able  opinion  delivered  by  that  accomplished,  and  as  he  said, 
"loyal  jurist,"  Mr.  Justice  Grier,  in  the  Prize  cases,  where  all  the  law  on 
these  points  is  collected.  (2  Black,  page  66.)  Following  Vattel,  he  at 
tempted  to  show  that  international  law  would  regard  the  insurrection  in  the 
South  as  a  war — a  civil  war. 

"When  the  party  in  rebellion  occupy  and  hold  in  a  hostile  manner  a 
certain  portion  of  territory  ;  have  declared  their  independence  ;  have  cast  off 
their  allegiance  ;  have  organized  armies  ;  have  commenced  hostilities  against 
their  former  sovereign,  the  world  acknowledges  them  as  belligerents  and  the 


A  TECHNICAL   RADICAL  ARGUMENT.  369 

contest  is  a  war."  So  says  Vattel.  Again  :  "  The  parties  belligerent  in  a 
public  war  are  independent  nations.  But  it  is  not  necessary,  to  constitute 
war,  that  both  should  be  acknowledged  as  independent  nations,  or  foreign 
states.  A  war  may  exist  where  one  of  the  belligerents  claims  sovereign 
rights  as  against  the  other."  The  idea  that  the  states  could  not  and  did  not 
make  war,  because  the  Constitution  forbids  it,  and  that  their  effort  for  inde 
pendence  must  be  treated  as  a  war  of  individuals,  Mr.  Stevens  regarded  as 
a  very  injurious  and  groundless  fallacy.  "  Individuals  cannot  make  war. 
They  may  commit  murder,  but  that  is  not  war.  Communities,  societies, 
states,  make  war."  He  cited  Phillimore  to  prove  that  war  between  private 
individuals  who  are  members  of  a  society  cannot  exist ;  and  that  the  use  of 
force  in  such  case  is  trespass,  and  not  war. 

"  But  why  appeal  to  reason,"  triumphantly  asks  Mr.  Stevens,  "  to  prove 
that  the  seceded  states  made  war  as  states,  when  the  conclusive  opinion  ot 
the  Supreme  Court  is  at  hand  ?  In  the  Prize  cases  already  cited,  where  the 
Supreme  Court  say  of  the  seceding  states,  that  in  organizing  the  rebellion 
they  have  acted  as  states  claiming  to  be  sovereign  over  all  persons  and  prop 
erty  within  their  respective  limits,  and  asserted  a  right  to  absolve  their  citi 
zens  from  allegiance  to  the  Federal  Government ;  that  these  states  had  com 
bined  to  form  a  new  confederacy,  claiming  to  be  acknowledged  by  the  world 
as  a  sovereign  state  ;  that  their  right  to  do  so  is  now  being  decided  by  wager 
of  battle ;  that  the  ports  and  territory  of  each  of  these  states  are  held  in  hos 
tility  to  the  general  government ;  that  it  is  no  loose,  unorganized  insurrection, 
having  no  defined  boundary  or  possession  ;  that  it  has  a  boundary  marked  by 
lines  of  bayonets  which  can  be  crossed  only  by  force  ;  and  that  south  of  this 
line  is  enemy's  territory,  because  it  is  claimed  and  held  in  possession  by  an 
organized  hostile  and  belligerent  power." 

Mr.  Stevens  wras  astonished  that  any  one  should  doubt  that  the  proclama 
tion  of  blockade  was  of  itself,  as  the  Court  declared  it  to  be,  official  and  con 
clusive  evidence  that  a  state  of  war  existed. 

What  was  the  legal  result  of  such  war?  Mr.  Stevens  answered  from 
Vattel  and  Halleck  that  the  conventions,  the  treaties  made  with  a  nation,  are 
broken  or  annulled  by  a  war  arising  between  the  contracting  parties.  He 
said,  referring  to  Vattel,  that  a  civil  war  breaks  the  bonds  of  society  and 
government,  or  at  least  suspends  their  force  and  effect ;  and  that  it  produces 
in  the  nation  two  independent  parties,  who  consider  each  other  as  enemies, 
and  acknowledge  no  common  judge.  These  two  parties  must  therefore,  he 
concluded,  be  considered  as  thenceforward  constituting,  at  least  for  a  time, 
two  separate  bodies  ;  two  distinct  societies.  "  They  stand,  therefore,  in  pre 
cisely  the  same  predicament  as  two  nations  who  engage  in  a  contest,  and, 
being  unable  to  come  to  an  agreement,  have  recourse  to  arms." 

No  one  can  refute  the  following  propositions :  When  a  nation  becomes 
divided  into  two  parties  absolutely  independent,  and  no  longer  acknowledging 


370  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

a  common  superior,  the  state  is  dissolved,  and  the  war  between  the  two 
parties  stands  on  the  same  ground,-  in  every  respect,  as  a  public  war  between 
two  different  nations  ;  the  belligerent  need  not  be  acknowledged  as  an  inde 
pendent  nation  ;  insurrection,  when  belligerent  parties  are  in  hostile  array,  is 
not  the  less  a  civil  war  because  it  may  be  called  an  "  insurrection,"  and  the 
insurgents  be  considered  as  rebels  or  traitors  by  one  of  the  parties  ;  it  is  not 
necessary  that  the  independence  of  the  revolted  province  or  state  be  acknowl 
edged,  in  order  to  constitute  it  a  party  belligerent,  according  to  the  law  of 
nations. 

These  doctrines,  contended  for  by  Mr.  Stevens,  had  been  clearly  estab 
lished  by  publicists,  and  distinctly  stated  by  Mr.  Justice  Grier.  They  have 
been  frequently  reiterated  since  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
In  Mr.  Alexander's  case  (2  Wallace,  419),  Chief  Justice  Chase,  delivering 
the  opinion  of  the  Court,  says  : 

"We  must  be  governed  by  the  principle  of  public  law,  so  often  an 
nounced  from  this  bench  as  applicable  to  civil  and  international  wars, 
that  all  the  people  of  each  state  or  district  in  insurrection  against  the 
United  States  must  be  regarded  as  enemies  until  by  the  action  of  the 
Legislature  and  Executive,  or  otherwise,  that  relation  is  thoroughly  and 
permanently  changed."  But  neither  on  these  principles  nor  on  the  ground 
of  estoppel,  for  which  Mr.  Stevens  contended,  had  the  United  States  a  right 
to  elect  to  adjudge  the  seceding  states  out  of  the  Union.  "  They  are  estopped," 
said  Mr.  Stevens,  "both  by  matter  of  record,  and  matter  in  pals."  He 
cites  in  estoppel  one  of  the  first  resolutions  passed  by  seceding  South  Carolina, 
in  January,  1861,  as  follows  : 

"  Resolved,  Unanimously,  That  the  separation  of  South  Carolina  from 
the  Federal  Union  is  final,  and  she  has  no  further  interest  in  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States ;  and  that  the  only  appropriate  negotiations 
between  her  and  the  Federal  Government  are  as  to  their  mutual  relations 
as  foreign  states." 

How  completely  Mr.  Stevens  puts  himself  outside  of  the  Constitution ! 
At  every  step  he  relies  on  the  law  of  nations  and  not  on  the  law  of  the  Union 
or  the  law  of  love.  Continuing  his  argument  he  said,  treating  of  the  seces 
sion  ordinances  :  "  Similar  resolutions  appear  upon  all  their  state  and  Con 
federate  records.  The  speeches  of  their  members  of  Congress,  their  generals 
and  executive  officers,  and  the  answers  of  their  government  to  our  shameful 
suings  for  peace  went  upon  the  defiant  ground  that  no  terms  would  be  offered 
or  received  except  upon  the  prior  acknowledgment  of  the  entire  and  permanent 
independence  of  the  Confederate  States.  After  this,  to  deny  that  we  have 
the  right  to  treat  them  as  a  conquered  belligerent,  severed  from  the  Union 
in  fact,  is  not  argument,  but  mockery.  Whether  it  be  our  interest  to  do  so, 
is  the  only  question  hereafter,  and  more  deliberately,  to  be  considered.  But 
suppose  these  powerful  but  now  subdued  belligerents,  instead  of  being  out 


TERRITORIAL  GOVERNMENTS  FOR  THE  SOUTH.  371 

of  the  Union,  are  merely  destroyed,  and  are  now  lying  about  as  dead  corpses, 
or  with  animation  so  suspended  as  to  be  incapable  of  action,  and  wholly 
unable  to  heal  themselves  by  any  unaided  movements  of  their  own  ?  Then 
they  may  fall  under  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  says,  *  the 
United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  state  in  this  Union  a  republican  form 
of  government.'  Under  that  power,  can  the  Judiciary,  or  the  President, 
or  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army,  or  the  Senate,  or  House  of  Rep 
resentatives,  acting  separately,  restore  them  to  life  and  re-admit  them  into 
the  Union?  I  insist  that  if  each  acted  separately,  though  the  action  of 
each  was  identical  with  all  the  others,  it  would  amount  to  nothing.  Nothing 
but  the  joint  action  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress  and  the  concurrence  of 
the  President  could  do  it.  If  the  Senate  admitted  their  Senators,  and  the 
House  their  members,  it  would  have  no  effect  on  the  future  action  of  Con 
gress.  The  Fortieth  Congress  might  reject  both.  Such  is  the  ragged  record 
of  Congress  for  the  last  four  years.  In  Luther  vs.  Borden,  the  Supreme  Court 
says  :  '  Under  this  article  of  the  Constitution  [the  one  above  cited] ,  it  rests 
with  Congress  to  decide  what  government  is  the  established  one  in  a  state. 
For  as  the  United  States  guarantee  to  each  state  a  republican  government, 
Congress  must  necessarily  decide  what  government  is  established  in  the 
state  before  it  can  determine  whether  it  is  republican  or  not.'  Congress 
alone  can  do  it.  But  Congress  does  not  mean  the  Senate,  or  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  President,  all  acting  severally.  Their  joint  action  consti 
tutes  Congress.  Hence  a  law  of  Congress  must  be  passed  before  any  new 
state  can  be  admitted,  or  any  dead  state  revived.  .  .  .  It  is  obvious 
from  all  this  that  the  first  duty  of  Congress  is  to  pass  a  law  declaring  the 
condition  of  these  outside  or  defunct  states,  and  providing  proper  civil  gov 
ernments  for  them.  Since  the  conquest,  they  have  been  governed  by  martial 
law.  Military  rule  is  necessarily  despotic,  and  ought  not  to  exist  longer 
than  is  absolutely  necessary.  As  there  are  no  symptoms  that  the  people  of 
these  provinces  will  be  prepared  to  participate  in  constitutional  govern 
ment  for  some  years,  I  know  of  no  arrangement  so  proper  for  them  as 
territorial  governments.  There  they  can  learn  the  principles  of  freedom, 
and  eat  the  fruits  of  foul  rebellion.  Under  such  governments,  while  electing 
members  to  the  territorial  legislatures,  they  will  necessarily  mingle  with 
those  to  whom  Congress  shall  extend  the  right  of  suffrage.  In  territories 
Congress  fixes  the  qualifications  of  electors  ;  and  I  know  of  no  better  place, 
nor  better  occasion  for  the  conquered  rebels  and  the  conqueror  to  practice 
justice  to  all  men,  and  accustom  themselves  to  make  and  obey  equal  laws. 
"According  to  my  judgment,"  said  Mr.  Stevens  in  making  his  conclud 
ing  application,  "  they  ought  never  to  be  recognized  as  capable  of  acting  in 
the  Union,  or  of  being  counted  as  valid  states,  until  the  Constitution  shall  have 
been  so  amended  as  to  make  it  what  its  framers  intended ;  and  so  as  to 
secure  perpetual  ascendency  to  the  party  of  the  Union  ;  and  so  as  to  render 


37 2  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

our  republican  government  firm  and  stable  forever.  The  first  of  those 
amendments  is  to  change  the  basis  of  representation  among  the  states 
from  Federal  numbers  to  actual  voters.  Now  all  the  colored  freemen  in 
the  slave  states,  and  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  are  represented,  though  none 
of  them  have  votes.  The  states  have  nineteen  representatives  of  colored 
slaves.  If  the  slaves  are  now  free,  then  they  can  add,  for  the  other  two-fifths, 
thirteen  more,  making  the  slave  representation  thirty-two.  I  suppose  the 
free  blacks  in  those  states  will  give  at  least  five  more,  making  the  representa 
tion  of  non-voting  people  of  color  thirty-seven.  The  whole  number  of  repre 
sentatives  now  from  the  slave  states  is  seventy.  Add  the  other  two-fifths  and 
it  will  be  eighty -three.  If  the  amendment  prevails,  and  those  states  withhold 
the  right  of  suffrage  from  persons  of  color,  it  will  deduct  about  thirty-seven, 
leaving  then  but  forty-six.  With  the  basis  unchanged,  the  eighty-three 
Southern  members,  with  the  Democrats  that  will  in  the  best  times  be  elected 
from  the  North,  will  always  give  them  a  majority  in  Congress,  and  in  the 
Electoral  College.  They  will  at  the  very  first  election  take  possession  of  the 
White  House,  and  the  halls  of  Congress.  I  need  not  depict  the  ruin  that 
would  follow.  Assumption  of  the  rebel  debt,  or  repudiation  of  the  Federal 
debt,  would  be  sure  to  follow.  The  oppression  of  the  freedmen ;  the  re- 
amendment  of  their  state  constitutions,  and  the  re-establishment  of  slavery 
would  be  the  inevitable  result.  That  they  would  scorn  and  disregard  their 
present  constitutions,  forced  upon  them  in  the  midst  of  martial  law, 
would  be  both  natural  and  just.  No  one  who  has  any  regard  for  free 
dom  of  elections  can  look  upon  those  governments,  forced  upon  them  in 
duress,  with  any  favor.  If  they  should  grant  the  right  of  suffrage  to  persons 
of  color,  I  think  there  would  always  be  Union  white  men  enough  in  the 
South,  aided  by  the  blacks,  to  divide  the  representation,  and  thus  continue 
the  Republican  ascendency.  If  they  should  refuse  to  thus  alter  their  elec 
tion  laws,  it  would  reduce  the  representatives  of  the  slave  states  to  about 
forty-five,  and  render  them  powerless  for  evil.  It  is  plain  that  this  amend 
ment  must  be  consummated  before  the  defunct  states  are  admitted  to  be  capable 
of  state  action,  or  it  never  can  be." 

Mr.  Stevens  insisted  that  homesteads  should  be  given  to  the  emancipated 
slaves.  But  the  mode  proposed  —  confiscation  of  land  —  did  not  agree 
with  his  war  theory.  Conquerors  are  presumed  to  respect  property  rights. 
His  theory  in  regard  to  the  effects  of  secession  and  resistance  to  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  differed  in  mode  only  from  that  of  the  secessionists. 
They  claimed  that  the  states  had  the  constitutional  right  to  secede,  while  he 
conceded  to  them  the  physical  power  to  secede.  On  either  theory,  their 
condition  in  the  event  of  defeat  would  seem  to  be  as  Mr.  Stevens  de 
scribed  it,  that  of  conquered  territories,  without  governments  and  without 
laws.  He  held  that  they  were  completely  at  the  mercy  of  the  conqueror. 
As  a  conquered  people,  they  might  be  dealt  with  as  the  monarchies  of 


THE  TRUE  RULE  FOR  CONGRESSIONAL  ACTION.  373 

Europe  deal  with  conquered  provinces,  without  regard  to  the  nature  of  our 
republican  institutions,  or  the  limits  of  constitutional  authority.  There 
is  no  authority  given  by  the  Constitution  to  hold  conquered  territory  as  a 
province,  with  the  people  inhabiting  it  deprived  of  the  right  of  self-gov 
ernment  and  equal  representation  in  Congress.  Whenever  our  government 
shall  enter  upon  a  career  of  conquest  and  subjugation,  it  will  forfeit  its 
character  of  a  free  republic,  in  which  equal  rights  are  guaranteed  to  all 
men. 

In  regard  to  the  political  weight  which  the  South  derived  from  the  pres 
ence  and  representation  of  its  colored  population,  Mr.  Stevens  was  a  little 
in  error.  Instead  of  the  South  being  entitled  to  seventy  representatives 
under  the  apportionment  based  on  the  census  of  1860,  counting  three-fifths 
of  the  negroes,  it  was  entitled  to  eighty-five.  He  said  that  the  seventy 
would  be  increased  to  eighty-three  if  the  remaining  two-fifths  were  repre 
sented  ;  whereas,  on  that  basis  the  eighty-five  would  have  risen  to  ninety- 
eight.  He  proposed  to  take  from  the  South  the  whole  negro  representation, 
which,  he  said,  would  reduce  the  representation  to  about  forty,  whereas  it 
would  have  remained  at  about  fifty-five  or  fifty-six.  He  doubtless  had  in 
his  mind  the  representation  of  the  Confederate  States,  when  he  spoke  of 
the  Southern  representation  being  seventy. 

Does  the  line  of  argument  followed  by  Mr.  Stevens  touch  the  real  merits 
of  the  question  ?  Does  it  show  any  acknowledgment  that  the  Constitution 
is  the  ganglion,  the  productive  organ  of  Federal  action  ;  and  that  its  powers 
are  the  nerve-fibres  which  alone  give  vital  force  to  the  will  of  Congress? 
His  points,  citations,  and  conclusions  might  be  convincing  in  a  prize  case, 
where  the  court  i ;  must  be  governed  by  the  principles  of  public  law  .  .  . 
applicable  to  civil  and  international  wars."  They  might  do  very  well  in  any 
suit  involving  only  personal  or  property  rights.  But  his  argument  was  not 
in  the  line  of  statesmanship.  There  was  no  precedent  applicable  to  the  case. 
The  question  presented  was  political.  No  Federal  or  state  court  could  take 
jurisdiction  for  its  determination.  Neither  municipal  nor  international  law 
could  furnish  principles  for  determining  the  relation  of  any  state  of  the 
Union  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  while  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  remained  a  binding  instrument  on  that  government  and  the  states 
respectively.  There,  in  that  charter,  in  it  alone  is  to  be  found  the  decisive 
rules  for  congressional  action.  Where  in  that  charter  is  to  be  found  the 
doctrine  of  forfeiture  of  state  rights?  Where  the  doctrine  of  state  felo-de-se? 
Where  of  war  between  the  states  ? 

If  by  reason  of  the  extent  of  the  insurrection,  and  the  action  of  foreign 
powers  we  were  compelled  to  suppress  secession  under  the  rules  of  war,  does 
it  follow  that  the  insurrection  was  a  war?  The  words  "  rebel"  and  *'  insurg 
ent"  imply  citizenship.  They  do  not  imply  alienage.  Suppose  the  State 
of  Maine  were  now  to  pass  an  ordinance  of  secession,  assert  her  independ- 


374  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

€nce,  and  resist  with  all  her  force  the  national  authority,  would  that  be  felo- 
de-se?  Would  she  be  no  longer  a  state  of  the  Union?  If  not,  by  what  right 
could  we  assume  to  make  a  conquest  of  her  territory?  If  Mr.  Stevens' 
argument  were  a  sound  one,  would  not  the  Canadians  have  as  good  a  right 
to  ask  her  to  join  their  Confederation  as  we  should  have  to  ask  heir  to  return 
to  the  Union?  Would  they  not  have  as  much  right  to  use  force  in  defending 
her  as  we  should  have  to  make  ivar  on  her  ? 

The  argument  from  belligerency,  like  that  for  the  right  of  secession,  be  it 
ever  so  strong,  can  have  no  force  where  there  is  devotion  to  brotherly  unity. 
Could  separation  be  effected  without  warlike  hostilities?  If  it  can,  it  must 
be  because  parties  are  so  evenly  balanced,  and  so  distinctly  marked  and 
divided  by  a  geographical  line  athwart  the  continent,  that  war  between  them 
would  be  manifest  folly.  On  the  contrary,  if  secession  must  always  be 
effected  by  war,  it  will  never  be  resorted  to  unless  there  is  great  unanimity 
in  a  large  and  contiguous  portion  of  the  Union.  Wherever  and  whenever 
this  is  the  case,  no  one  can  successfully  dispute  the  right  of  the  government 
to  resist  separation  in  the  modes  of  war.  What  would  any  one  care  for  the 
abstract  "rights"  of  secession?  Even  the  secession  leaders  disregarded  their 
own  theory  when  they  apprehended  that  it  might  be  turned  against  them 
selves.  They  stood  ready  to  overwhelm  the  menaced  secession  of  North 
Carolina  from  the  Confederacy,  by  the  troops  of  adjacent  and  sister  states. 
To  hold  states  as  territories  after  a  war  for  a  Union  of  states,  is  just  as 
illogical. 

Suppose  the  radical  doctrine  is  admitted,  on  what  grounds  of  ethics  or 
international  law  is  the  "  Confederate  war  debt"  to  be  repudiated?  Suppose 
we  should  conquer  Mexico,  could  we  lawfully  repudiate  the  debts  of  her 
government?  When  we  came  to  amend  the  Constitution,  after  the  national 
authority  had  asserted  itself  over  the  insurgent  states,  did  we  speak  of  war  or 
conquests,  or  prohibit  the  payment  of  any  war  debts  ?  No.  We  said : 
"  But  neither  the  United  States,  nor  any  state,  shall  assume  or  pay  any  debt 
or  obligation  incurred  in  aid  of  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  United 
States."  Was  this  an  admission  that  we  had  conquered  territories  in  a  war? 
Was  it  not  a  plain  assertion  that  the  strife  was  an  insurrection  and  rebellion, 
and  that  all  contracts  in  aid  of  it  were  null  and  void.  Payment  of  them  can 
not  even  be  voluntary.  States  and  Congresses  which  might  desire  to  pay 
them  are  prohibited  from  so  doing.  When  secession  is  treated  in  the  consti 
tutional  way,  as  an  insurrection  or  rebellion,  no  questions  can  arise  that  will 
involve  contradictory  conclusions.  The  moment  the  Federal  power  with 
drew  its  action  into  its  own  sphere,  that  moment  the  sovereignty  of  the 
states  asserted  itself.  To  this  course,  the  calming  influences  of  better  judg 
ment  at  last  brought  the  people  of  the  North.  It  would  have  been  reached 
in  a  very  short  time  if  moderation,  and  not  passion,  had  obtained  sway  in 
the  councils  of  the  Nation. 


CHAPTER  XXL 


TEMPORARY  STATE  REORGANIZATION  IN  THE  SOUTH. 

STATUS  OF  THE  COLORED  PEOPLE  —  DEMANDS  FOR  THEIR  ENFRANCHISEMENT  — 
THE  FIRST  RECONSTRUCTION  ACT  —  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  VETO  — THE  AT 
TORNEY-GENERAL'S  OPINION  —  MARTIAL  LAW  TO  GO VERN  THE  SOUTH  — DIS- 
FRANCHISEMENT  OF  THE  INTELLIGENT  — PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  POLICY- 
ITS  OPERATION  —  REORGANIZATION  IN  TENNESSEE  —  WILLIAM  G.  BROWN- 
LOW  ELECTED  GOVERNOR  —  SECESSION  ORDINANCES  ANNULLED  —  CONFED 
ERATE  ACTS  AND  OBLIGATIONS  MADE  VOID  —  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMEND 
MENTS  -  DISUNIONISTS  DISFRANCHISED  —  SLAVERY  ABOLISHED  —  CIVIL 
RIGHTS  GRANTED  TO  COLORED  PEOPLE  — THEY  ARE  NOT  TO  VOTE,  HOLD 
OFFICE,  OR  SIT  ON  JURIES  — CONGRESS  APPROVES  OF  THIS  COURSE  — TEN 
NESSEE  ADMITTED  TO  FEDERAL  RELATIONS,  JULY  34,  iS<56  —  UNION  SENTI 
MENT  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA  —  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  ATTEMPT  TO  REHA 
BILITATE  THAT  STATE  -  GOVERNOR  VANCE'S  ADVICE  —  PROVISIONAL  GOV 
ERNOR  HOLDEN  APPOINTED  —  HEARTY  REPEAL  OF  THE  SECESSION  ORDI 
NANCE  —  CONVENTION  AND  LEGISLATIVE  WORK  —  IT  DOES  NOT  SATISFY 
CONGRESS  —  NORTH  CAROLINA  TO  REMAIN  A  CONQUERED  PROVINCE. 

THE  temporary  organizations  of  the  Southern  States  under  the  procla 
mations  of  Presidents  Lincoln  and  Johnson  were  suffered  to  remain 
in  force  until  the  spring  of  1867.     In  none  of  them  was  the  suffrage 
conferred  upon  colored  men,  and  in  some  of  them  the  legislatures 
enacted   laws   which    discriminated    against    the    colored    people    in   other 
respects.      Some  tutelary  legislation  was  contemplated   by  Mr.   Lincoln  in 
behalf  of  the  freedmen.     It  was  hinted  at  in  his  proclamation  of  Dec.  8, 
1863,  as  a  temporary  expedient  consistent  "  with  their  present  condition  as  a 
laboring,  landless,  and  homeless  class."     But  this  concession  to  the  state  leg 
islatures  was  far  from  being  satisfactory  to  the  majority  of  Congress.     The 
discriminating  laws,  though  guarded  in  terms,  and  intended  to  protect  the 
emancipated  slaves,  were  to  be  enforced   by  men  who  had   held   them    in 
slavery.     It  was  surmised  that  these  men  would  abuse  a  trust  which  was 
a  limitation   upon  their   long-exercised,  hereditary  and  absolute    authority. 
Loud  complaints  were  soon  heard  of  the  tyranny  and  cruelty  exercised  over 


376  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  blacks.  Congress  was  in  no  mood  to  listen  to  such  complaints  with  in 
difference.  Northern  and  congressional  sentiment  was  rapidly  developing  in 
favor  of  a  more  radical  treatment  of  the  South.  It  began  to  be  believed  that 
nothing  short  of  an  unqualified  grant  of  suffrage  to  the  negroes  would  secure 
them  peace,  with  justice.  It  was  also  thought  that  the  predominance  of  the 
Republican  party  would  be  assured  by  such  a  grant.  As  a  tentative  meas 
ure,  bills  were  introduced  in  each  house  for  the  establishment  of  negro  suf 
frage  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  in  all  the  territories.  The  bill  for  the 
District  encountered  strenuous  opposition.  Many  Republican  Representa 
tives  from  states  which  confined  the  right  of  suffrage  to  white  men,  or  en 
cumbered  it  in  the  case  of  colored  men  with  educational  or  property  qualifi 
cations,  naturally  hesitated.  When  called  on  by  the  exigencies  of  party  to 
invest  with  the  franchise  the  whole  mass  of  illiterate  blacks  in  other  commu 
nities  which  had  no  voice  in  determining  the  question,  they  hesitated.  But 
they  overcame  their  scruples,  and  in  January,  1867,  the  District  bill  was 
passed,  over  President  Johnson's  veto.  The  Territorial  Suffrage  bill  was 
adopted  by  both  houses,  during  the  same  month,  by  overwhelming  majorities. 

In  pursuance  of  the  same  policy,  the  act  known  as  the  Reconstruction  act 
was  likewise  passed  by  Congress  over  the  President's  veto,  on  March  2, 1867. 
This  bill  goes  under  a  misnomer.  It  is  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  provide  for  the 
more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel  states."  It  should  have  been  called, 
"  An  Act  for  the  more  thorough  military  subjugation  of  the  states  lately 
in  insurrection  against  the  United  States."  The  act,  after  alleging  that  no 
legal  state  governments  or  adequate  protection  for  life  and  property  existed  in 
the  states  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Mississippi, 
Alabama,  Louisiana,  Florida,  Texas,  and  Arkansas,  provided  that  these  states 
should  be  divided  into  five  military  districts,  under  the  command  of  officers 
of  the  army  assigned  thereto  by  the  President.  Each  of  these  commanders 
was  to  have  under  his  control  troops  enough  to  enforce  his  authority.  The 
power  conferred  on  these  commanders  within  their  districts  was  almost  un 
limited.  The  fifth  and  sixth  sections  of  the  act  authorized  the  people  to  re 
construct  their  state  governments  by  spontaneous  action,  though  on  prescribed 
conditions.  These  sections,  however,  were  superseded  by  the  act  of  March 
23d,  following.  This  act  not  only  fixed  the  conditions  of  reconstruction, 
but  provided  that  the  process  should  be  inaugurated  and  conducted  by  the 
military  commanders. 

In  assigning  his  reasons  for  withholding  his  signature  from  this  measure, 
President  Johnson  denied  that  the  states  in  question  were  without  legal 
governments.  He  insisted  that  the  true  purpose  of  the  bill  was  not  to  en 
force  peace  and  good  order,  but  to  compel  the  people  of  those  states  to  con 
fer  the  right  of  suffrage  on  the  negro,  and  to  ratify  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  the  course  of  his  long  and 
searching  analysis  of  the  bill,  the  President  criticised  the  powers  it  conferred 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  DEFENDS  THE  CONSTITUTION.  377 

on  the  military  commanders.  He  said  :  u  The  power  thus  given  to  the  com 
manding  officers  over  all  the  people  of  each  district  is  that  of  an  absolute 
monarch.  His  mere  will  is  to  take  the  place  of  all  law.  .  .  .  Every 
thing  is  a  crime  which  he  chooses  to  call  so,  and  all  persons  are  condemned 
whom  he  pronounces  to  be  guilty.  .  .  .  He  may  arrest  his  victims 
wherever  he  finds  them,  without  warrant,  accusation,  or  proof  of  probable 
cause.  If  he  gives  them  a  trial  before  he  inflicts  the  punishment,  he  gives  it 
of  his  grace  and  mercy,  not  because  he  is  commanded  to  do  so.  To  a  casual 
reader  of  the  bill,  it  might  seem  that  some  kind  of  a  trial  was  secured  by  it 
to  persons  accused  of  crime,  but  such  is  not  the  case.  The  officer  '  may 
allow  local  civil  tribunals  to  try  offenders,'  but,  of  course,  this  does  not  re 
quire  that  he  shall  do  so.  If  any  state  or  Federal  court  presumes  to  exercise 
its  legal  jurisdiction  by  the  trial  of  a  malefactor  without  his  special  permis 
sion,  he  can  break  it  up,  and  punish  the  judges  and  jurors  as  being  them 
selves  the  malefactors.  It  is  plain  that  the  authority  here  given  to  the  mili 
tary  officer  amounts  to  absolute  despotism.  .  .  .  Such  a  power  has  not 
been  wielded  by  any  monarch  in  England  for  more  than  five  hundred  years. 
In  all  that  time  no  people  who  speak  the  English  language  have  borne  such 
servitude." 

This  was  strong  language,  but  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  exaggerated. 
The  South  was  subjected  to  military  despotism,  pure  and  simple.  It  is  vain 
to  attempt  to  disguise  the  fact.  Mr.  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania,  as  shown  in 
a  preceding  page,  denounced  President  Johnson's  reconstruction  policy  as 
arbitrary,  and  the  constitutions  formed  under  it  as  having  been  adopted  under 
duress  ;  and  lo  !  his  own  measure  was  tenfold  more  arbitrary  and  despotic 
The  little  finger  of  the  legislature  was  thicker  than  the  President's  loins. 

Mr.  Johnson  went  on  to  show,  in  an  elaborate  argument,  that  the  act 
violated  the  plainest  provisions  of  the  Constitution.  It  established  martial 
law  in  a  time  of  profound  peace  ;  it  suspended  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus; 
it  swept  away  every  vestige  of  republican  government  in  ten  states ;  and  it 
was,  in  fact,  a  bill  of  attainder  against  nine  millions  of  people  at  once.  He 
exposed  the  tyrannical  and  unconstitutional  character  of  this  act,  with  force 
and  clearness.  But  it  was  so  flagrant  a  departure  from  all  the  landmarks  of 
civil  liberty,  as  set  up  and  observed  from  the  days  of  Magna  Charta  to  the 
present  times,  that  argument  would  seem  entirely  superfluous.  Apart  from 
the  absolute  despotism  which  the  act  established  over  the  Southern  people, 
there  were  wholly  unnecessary  infractions  of  the  Constitution,  in  the  clauses 
which  ignored  and  attempted  to  exclude  the  legitimate  authority  of  the  Pres 
ident  of  the  United  States,  in  favor  of  the  commander  of  the  army,  who  in 
effect,  was  made  the  executive  of  the  Nation.  Mr.  Sumner,  in  ante-bellum 
days,  was  wont  to  refer  to  the  congressional  enactment  in  reference. to  fugitive 
slaves,  as  the  "  Fugitive  Slave  Bill."  He  would  never  allow  it  to  be  an 
*'  act."  That  term  implied,  as  he  said,  a  constitutional  exercise  of  power  by 
M 


37$  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Congress.  Mr.  Webster,  while  voting  for  the  measure  of  1850,  admitted 
that,  but  for  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  he  should  deny  the  power 
of  Congress  to  legislate  on  the  subject.  But  it  could  at  least  be  said  in  be 
half  of  the  constitutionality  of  that  "bill,"  that  there  was  a  clause  in  the 
Constitution  which  required  the  return  of  "  fugitives  from  labor,"  while  no 
clause  in  the  Constitution  can  be  tortured  into  an  authority  for  setting  up 
military  satrapies  in  any  part  of  the  Union,  whether  in  states  or  territories. 
Yet  the  Massachusetts  Senator,  in  his  zeal  for  liberty,  was  actively  instru 
mental  in  passing  this  "  bill"  for  the  establishment  of  a  military  despotism 
in  the  South.  The  President's  reasoning  proved  of  no  avail  to  prevent  the 
passage  of  the  bill.  It  became  an  "  act."  On  the  I2th  of  June,  Attorney- 
General  Stanbery  addressed  a  letter  to  the  President  upon  the  proper  con 
struction  of  the  act.  In  this  letter  he  applied  the  rule  that  "  a  statute  creat 
ing  a  new  jurisdiction  ought  to  be  construed  strictly,"  so  as  to  strip  the  mili 
tary  commanders  of  the  power  to  remove  and  appoint  governors,  judges,  and 
other  state  officers,  to  suspend  the  execution  of  the  process  of  the  courts,  and 
to  make  laws  for  the  people. 

Two  days  after  the  date  of  this  opinion,  the  commander  of  the  Second 
military  district  addressed  a  telegram  to  the  Attorney-General,  in  which  he 
represented  that  the  power  to  remove  civil  officers  was  indispensable  to  the 
proper  discharge  of  his  duties.  It  is  probable  that  other  military  commanders 
in  the  South  urged  similar  reasons  for  the  exercise  of  unlimited  power. 
The  effect  was  to  induce  the  passage  by  Congress  of  the  act  of  July  I9th, 
of  the  same  year,  declaratory  of  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Recon 
struction  acts.  This  swept  away  the  construction  placed  upon  the  former 
acts  by  the  Attorney-General,  and  gave  each  district  commander  the  power  to 
remove  any  officer  whose  authority  was  derived  from  the  local  government ; 
subject  only  to  the  disapproval  of  the  general  of  the  army.  The  tenth  section 
of  the  last  mentioned  act  provided,  "  That  no  district  commander,  or  member 
of  the  board  of  registration,  or  any  of  the  officers  or  appointees  acting  under 
them,  shall  be  bound  in  his  action  by  any  opinion  of  any  civil  officer  of  the 
United  States."  The  justice  of  Mr.  Johnson's  strictures  upon  the  Recon 
struction  act  of  March  2,  1867,  will  not  be  questioned.  It  was  in  violation  of 
the  Constitution.  It  did  not  merely  hold  the  conquered  people  under  military 
subjection,  after  their  surrender,  until  order  and  civil  rule  could  be  re-estab 
lished  ;  but  it  deliberately  overthrew  and  superseded  an  established  civil  rule, 
in  order  to  constrain  the  people  to  the  adoption  of  certain  organic  measures. 

The  intrinsic  difficulties  of  the  situation  are  not  to  be  denied.  The  ruling 
classes  of  the  Southern  people  had  attempted  to  disrupt  the  Union  in  order 
to  establish  their  own  independence.  The  overthrow  of  their  armies  had 
not  changed  their  opinions  nor  their  feelings.  Necessity  compelled  their 
submission,  but  necessity  could  not  make  them  love  a  union  with  the  victorious 
North,  nor  make  them  cordially  recognize  and  support  the  rights  of  the  freed- 


THE  LAW  OF  NECESSITY.  379 

men.  The  local  state  officials  of  the  eleven  confederated  states  were  as 
hostile  to  the  Union  and  to  the  freedom  of  the  negroes  as  those  of  the  ex 
ploded  Confederacy  had  been  ;  and  they  had  all  committed  treason,  as  defined 
by  the  Constitution.  When  the  Confederate  armies  surrendered,  the  people 
of  those  states  had  neither  governors  nor  judges,  nor  administrative  officers 
that  the  government  of  the  Nation  could  at  once  recognize.  Hence  it  did  not 
seem  politic  to  treat  any  of  them  as  having  official  authority  over  the  peo 
ple.  To  deny  this,  at  that  time,  was  simply  to  deny  the  right  of  the  gov 
ernment  to  suppress  the  rebellion  and  to  maintain  the  Union.  Recon 
struction,  therefore,  became  a  political  necessky.  But  it  was  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  our  government  to  hold  millions  of  peo 
ple,  inhabiting  extensive  territories,  in  military,  or  even  in  provincial  subjec 
tion  a  moment  longer  than  might  be  absolutely  necessary.  Besides  this, 
it  would  involve  the  necessity  of  a  large  standing  army.  It  might  lead  to 
the  overthrow  of  state  governments,  and  to  the  consolidation  of  the  Union 
into  a  military  despotism.  Better  far,  that  the  Union  should  be  dissolved, 
than  that  it  should  be  made  the  instrument  of  military  ambition.  The 
right  of  the  people  in  every  state  to  self-government  is  inherent  and  inalien 
able.  The  Constitution  provides  that  the  United  States  shall  guarantee  to 
every  state  a  republican  form  of  government.  The  government  of  the 
United  States  may,  and  must,  therefore,  for  this  sole  purpose,  take  temporary 
charge  of  the  people  of  a  state  whose  legitimate  government  is  overthrown. 
It  may  not  establish  a  military  despotism,  but  it  may  temporarily,  from  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  maintain  peace  and  order,  through  the  instrumentality 
of  a  military  government  until  civil  authority  can  assert  itself.  The  consti 
tutional  guarantee  of  "  a  republican  form  of  government"  cannot  be  made 
good  unless  this  exercise  of  Federal  power  be  conceded. 

It  is  equally  clear  that  the  government  may  impose  conditions  of  recon 
struction  ;  for,  otherwise,  a  rebellious  people  might  re-establish  their  former 
constitutions  and  laws,  and  reinstate  their  disloyal  officials.  President 
Johnson,  in  the  message  accompanying  his  veto  of  the  Reconstruction 
bill,  seemed  to  deny  this  right  of  interposition  on  the  part  of  the  general 
government  for  the  purpose  of  dictating  the  conditions  of  restoration, 
though  he  had  set  the  example  by  exercising  it  himself.  In  the  course  of 
his  argument  he  said  that  the  bill  not  only  thrusts  the  privilege  of  voting 
into  the  hands  of  the  negroes,  but  compels  them,  as  well  as  the  whites,  to 
use  it  in  a  particular  way.  Therefore  he  desired  to  ask  the  attention  of  Con 
gress  to  the  universally  acknowledged  rule  of  constitutional  law,  which  de 
clares  that  the  Federal  Government  has  no  jurisdiction,  authority,  or  power 
to  regulate  such  subjects  for  any  state.  To  force  the  right  of  suffrage  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  white  people  and  into  the  hands  of  the  negroes,  he  pro 
nounced  an  arbitrary  violation  of  this  principle.  This  reasoning  of  the  Presi 
dent  cannot  be  reconciled  with  his  position  and  action  in  his  Amnesty 


380  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

proclamation  of  May  29,  1865,  nor  with  his  proclamation  of  the  same  date, 
appointing  William  W.  Holden  provisional  governor  of  North  Carolina. 
In  that  initial  measure  of  reconstruction,  he  made  it  the  duty  of  Governor 
Holden  to  prescribe  the  necessary  rules  for  calling  a  convention  to  amend 
the  constitution  of  the  state.  He  established  qualifications  for  the  elec 
tors  and  delegates  that  excluded  from  taking  any  part  in  the  conven 
tion,  nearly  all  the  former  governing  class  of  the  state.  And  in  extending 
the  like  measure  to  the  other  Southern  states,  he  followed  the  same  dis 
franchising  policy,  which  produced  the  same  result.  He  commenced  recon 
struction  in  North  Carolina  and  the  other  states  by  setting  aside  their  ex 
isting  governments.  He  could  see  no  other  course.  In  principle  there  was 
no  difference  between  the  former  mode  of  the  President  and  the  present 
mode  of  Congress.  But  in  motive  there  was  a  difference  as  far  apart  as  the 
poles. 

In  dispatches  to  the  provisional  governors  whom  he  had  appointed  in  1865, 
the  President,  and  his  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Seward,  urged  the  necessity  of 
forming  state  constitutions  which  would  abolish  slavery,  and  repudiate  all 
obligations  to  pay  the  state  and  Confederate  war  debts  These  injunctions 
amounted  to  commands,  since  compliance  with  them  was  made  an  essential 
condition  of  restoration  to  Federal  rights.  At  that  time  there  was  a  manifest 
necessity  for  Federal  intervention  and  dictation,  in  the  work  of  reconstruction. 
But  the  success  of  President  Johnson  in  constraining  the  adoption  of  meas 
ures  which  he  then  deemed  to  be  essential  conditions  of  reconstruction,  under 
forms  of  government  reinstituted  by  the  people  themselves,  proves  that  the  con 
gressional  policy  might  have  been  carried  out  in  the  same  way,  and  by  the 
same  state  governments.  Under  the  President's  policy,  constitutions  were 
framed  which  abolished  slavery,  repudiated  the  state  war  debts,  and  declared 
the  union  of  the  states  to  be  perpetual  and  inviolable.  \Vith  the  back 
ground  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  which,  in  effect,  restricts  representa 
tion  to  the  voting  population,  and  with  the  certainty  that  Represent 
atives  would  *  never  be  received  on  any  other  basis,  negro  suffrage 
would  have  been  adopted  more  cheerfully,  and  by  a  larger  proportion  of  the 
white  vote,  without  the  aid  of  the  congressional  military  governments. 
As  it  was,  the  constitutions  which  embraced  those  radical  changes  were 
adopted  mainly  by  negro  votes.  Not  more  than  one  white  vote  in  ten  was 
cast  in  their  favor,  except*  in  North  Carolina.  In  that  state,  not  more 
than  three  in  ten.  Half  the  white  people,  who  were  not  disfranchised, 
stood  aloof,  sullen  and  passive,  or  intimidated  spectators.  There  could  be 
no  doubt  that  the  adoption  by  Congress  of  Mr.  Johnson's  exceptions,  which 
excluded  a  large  portion  of  the  intelligence  and.  wealth  of  the  South  from 
the  privileges  of  amnesty  and  suffrage,  added  much  to  this  unfortunate 
temper  of  the  people.  The  aged,  the  experienced,  the  cool-headed,  and  the 
sagacious  men  of  the  South  were  excluded  by  the  exceptions.  The  very 


TENNESSEE  SECEDES  FROM  THE  CONFEDERACY.      381 

men  who  would  most  clearly  see  the  folly  of  further  resistance  to  the  general 
government,  and  the  necessity  of  acquiescence  in  the  inevitable  results  of  the 
war,  were  excluded.  Those  of  the  white  people  who  were  permitted  to  vote 
under  Mr.  Johnson's  measures  of  reconstruction  voted  against  the  adoption 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  for  the  sole  and  avowed  reason  that  it  proposed 
to  engraft  on  the  Constitution  those  very  exceptions  from  the  privileges  of 
amnesty  and  leadership.  The  younger  and  less  distinguished  classes  refused 
to  be  made  instrumental  in  fastening  a  stigma  and  a  yoke  upon  their  elders, 
their  leaders,  and  their  superiors  in  intelligence  and  wealth,  whom  they  had 
followed,  and  whom  they  felt  to  be  no  more  obnoxious  to  the  penalties  of 
rebellion  than  themselves.  They  refused  to  liberate  themselves  from  political 
thraldom  by  the  adoption  of  a  measure  which  would  degrade  and  disfran 
chise  their  dearest  friends  ;  and  their  conduct  in  this  respect  was  manly  and 
worthy  of  all  praise. 

Tennessee  was  the  first  of  the  seceding  states  to  resume  her  proper 
authority.  She  contained  a  larger  proportion  of  pronounced  Union  men 
than  any  other  state  that  entered  the  Confederacy.  A  controlling  majority 
of  the  people  of  East  Tennessee  remained  loyal  to  the  government.  There 
were,  also,  many  leading  men  in  the  middle  and  western  counties  who 
never  swerved  from  their  attachment  to  the  Union.  Within  her  borders 
the  war  was  indeed  internecine.  What  was  the  consequence?  Great 
destruction  of  private  property,  with  murder  and  rapine.  But  there  was 
some  compensation  for  her  special  sufferings.  She  escaped  from  the 
Caudine  Forks  without  passing  beneath  the  yoke  of  the  Reconstruction  acts. 
She  was  the  first  of  the  Confederate  sisterhood  to  succumb  to  the  Union 
arms.  She  was  also  the  first  re-admitted  to  representation  in  Congress 
and  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  "practical  relations"  in  the  Union.  The 
national  forces  todl^  possession  of  the  state  in  the  latter  half  of  February, 
1862.  The  constitutional  authority  was  promptly  re-established  over  the 
greater  part  of  the  state.  Immediately  after  the  capture  of  Nashville, 
President  Lincoln  appointed  Andrew  Johnson  military  governor  of  Tennes 
see.  Mr.  Johnson  had  been  a  life-long  member  of  the  Democratic  party. 
He  had  served  five  terms  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  had  been 
governor  of  the  state.  When  the  war  came  he  was  a  member  of  the  United 
States  Senate.  In  that  body  he  took  a  firm  stand  for  the  Union,  and  greatly 
distinguished  himself  in  debate  in  reply  to  Jefferson  Davis  and  other  extrem 
ists.  The  author  confesses  to  a  partiality  that  may  affect  his  judgment  of  this 
tribune  of  the  people.  Now  that  he  has  gone  to  another  tribunal,  his  eulogy 
may  not  be  accounted  ecstasy,  but  honesty.  How  he  helped  to  save  the  Re 
public,  through  this  grand  state  of  Andrew  Jackson,  James  K.  Polk,  and 
Felix  Grundy,  will  appear  in  the  sequel.  As  military  governor  he  was 
chiefly  employed  in  efforts  to  restore  order  and  win  back  the  people  to  the 


382  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

support  of  the  Union.  He  acted  with  characteristic  vigor  and  resolution, 
and  thus  gained  the  confidence  of  the  country.  Into  the  details  of  these 
efforts  it  is  not  the  purpose  here  to  enter. 

In  1864,  attempts  were  made  to  re-establish  civil  government  in  the  state. 
A  popular  convention  at  Nashville,  on  Jan.  9,  1865,  nominated  William  G. 
Brownlow  for  governor.  It  proposed  amendments  to  the  state  constitution, 
which  were  ratified  on  Feb.  22d,  by  a  vote  of  25,293  to  48.  The  result  was 
announced  by  a  proclamation  of  the  governor,  and  a  state  election  was  held 
on  March  4th,  for  governor,  legislature,  and  state  officers.  By  the  constitu 
tional  amendments  adopted,  slavery  was  abolished,  the  ordinance  of  secession 
was  annulled,  all  acts  of  the  Confederate  authorities  were  declared  void,  the 
payment  of  any  obligations  contracted  by  them  was  forbidden,  and  all  of 
Governor  Johnson's  appointments  were  confirmed.  The  legislature  thus 
chosen  proceeded  to  reorganize  the  state  government,  and  to  take  measures 
necessary  for  carrying  into  effect  the  new  provisions  of  the  organic  law. 
The  most  important  of  these  measures  was  the  franchise  act,  passed  on  June 
5,  1865,  and  amended  on  May  3,  1866.  This  act  restricted  suffrage  to  loyal 
white  men;  in  the  language  of  the  act  —  to  those  who  were  " publicly 
known  to  have  entertained  unconstitutional  Union  sentiments  from  the  out 
break  of  the  rebellion  until  the  present  time."  Acts  were  also  passed  early 
in  1866,  to  secure  the  civil  rights  of  persons  of  color ;  but  expressly  except 
ing  therefrom  the  right  to  vote,  to  hold  office,  and  to  sit  on  juries.  None  of 
them  required  the  education  of  colored  and  white  children  in  the  same 
schools.  In  consequence  of  these  enactments  all  freedmen's  courts  in  Ten 
nessee  were  abolished.  The  course  of  the  new  government  was  approved 
by  Congress.  A  joint  resolution  restoring  Tennessee  to  her  relations  to  the 
Union  was  passed  on  July  23,  1866.  It  received  the  President's  signature  on 
the  24th.  The  preamble  reads  as  follows  : 

44  Whereas,  in  the  year  1861,  the  government  of  the  State  of  Tennessee 
was  seized  upon  and  taken  possession  of  by  persons  in  hostility  to  the  United 
States  ;  and  the  inhabitants  of  said  state,  in  pursuance  of  an  act  of  Congress 
were  declared  to  be  in  a  state  of  insurrection  against  the  United  States  ;  and 
whereas,  said  government  can  only  be  restored  to  its  former  practical  relations 
in  the  Union  by  the  consent  of  the  law-making  power  of  the  United  States  ; 
and  whereas,  the  people  of  said  state  did,  on  the  twenty-second  day  of  Feb 
ruary,  1865,  by  a  large  popular  vote,  adopt  and  ratify  a  constitution  of  gov 
ernment,  whereby  slavery  was  abolished,  and  all  ordinances  and  laws  of 
secession,  and  debts  contracted  under  the  same,  were  declared  void;  and 
whereas,  a  state  government  has  been  organized  under  said  constitution 
which  has  ratified  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
abolishing  slavery  ;  also  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  Thirty-ninth  Con 
gress,  and  has  done  other  acts  proclaiming  and  denoting  loyalty." 

The  resolution  was:    "That  the  State  of  Tennessee  is  hereby  restored 


TENNESSEE  BACK  IN  THE  UNION.  383 

to  her  proper  practical  relations  to  the  Union,  and  is  again  entitled  to  be 
represented  by  Senators  ancl.Representatives  in  Congress." 

President  Johnson,  in  an  elaborate  protest  which  accompanied  his  sig 
nature  of  the  joint  resolution,  stated  his  position,  as  follows :  "  Earnestly 
desiring  to  remove  every  cause  of  further  delay,  whether  real  or  imaginary, 
on  the  part  of  Congress  to  the  admission  to  seats  of  loyal  Senators  and  Rep 
resentatives  from  the  State  of  Tennessee,  I  have,  notwithstanding  the  anom 
alous  character  of  this  proceeding,  affixed  my  signature  to  the  resolution. 
My  approval,  however,  is  not  to  be  construed  as  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
right  of  Congress  to  pass  laws  preliminary  to  the  admission  of  duly  qualified 
Representatives  from  any  of  the  states.  Neither  is  it  to  be  considered  as 
committing  me  to  all  the  statements  made  in  the  preamble,  some  of  which 
are,  in  my  opinion,  without  foundation  in  fact.  If,"  he  continued,  "  a  state 
government  can  only  be  restored  to  its  former  practical  relations  in  the  Union 
by  the  consent  of  the  law-making  power  of  the  United  States,  it  would  really 
seem  to  follow  that  the  joint  resolution  which  at  this  late  day  has  received 
the  sanction  of  Congress  should  have  been  passed,  approved,  and  placed  on 
the  statute-books  before  any  amendment  of  the  Constitution  was  submitted  to 
the  legislature  of  Tennessee  for  its  ratification.  Otherwise  the  inference  is 

to 

plainly  deducible  that  while,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  the  people  of  a  state 
may  be  too  strongly  disloyal  to  be  entitled  to  representation,  they  may,  never 
theless,  during  the  suspension  of  their  former  proper  practical  relations  to  the 
Union,  have  an  equally  potent  voice  with  other  and  loyal  states  in  proposi 
tions  to  amend  the  Constitution,  upon  which  so  essentially  depend  the  sta 
bility,  prosperity,  and  very  existence  of  the  Union." 

No  state  of  the  South  had  less  of  the  secession  spirit  before  the  com 
mencement  of  hostilities,  nor  more  of  devotion  to  the  Union,  than  North 
Carolina.  In  February,  1861,  her  people  voted  down  the  legislative  propo 
sition  to  hold  a  state  convention  to  consider  the  question  of  secession.  On 
the  same  day,  however,  delegates  were  elected  to  the  proposed  convention, 
of  whom  a  large  majority,  chosen  by  nearly  thirty  thousand  majority  of  the 
popular  vote,  were  against  secession.  But  the  secessionists,  who  controlled 
the  legislature,  were  not  satisfied  with  this  decision  of  the  people.  They 
passed  another  convention  bill.  This  time  they  very  shrewdly  provided  that 
the  action  of  the  convention  should  be  valid  without  a  ratification  by  the  peo 
ple.  Still  a  majority  of  the  delegates, —  although  chosen  amid  active  prep 
arations  for  war,  the  din  of  arms,  and  the  threats  and  clamor  of  demagogues 
engaged  in  "  preparing  the  hearts  of  the  people  for  wrar,"  —  were  against 
secession.  They  only  yielded  when  the  adjoining  states  adopted  their  dis 
astrous  ordinances.  The  anti-secession  party  in  the  state  elected  Zebulon  B. 
Vance  governor.  They  secured  a  majority  in  the  legislature. —  These  anti- 
secessionists  of  the  South  were  in  a  predicament  not  unlike  that  of  those 


384  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Northern  Democrats  who  were  opposed  to  making  war  while  compromise 
was  possible.  The  Southern  Unionists  were  swept  along  in  the  current 
against  their  will,  until  many  of  them  came  to  sympathize  in  a  cause  for 
which  their  neighbors,  friends,  and  relatives  were  fighting.  But  there  was 
this  difference  in  the  situation.  In  the  Northern  states  public  opinion  was 
not  so  intolerant  but  that,  by  holding  his  peace,  a  man  might  now  and  then 
go  unquestioned,  and  attend  to  his  usual  vocation.  In  the  South  this  was 
not  the  case.  The  achievement  of  independence  was  felt  to  be  an  enter 
prise  which  nothing  short  of  the  most  desperate  determination  could  carry. 
This  consciousness,  in  conjunction  with  the  intolerance  of  opposition,  made 
it  necessary  for  every  man  to  "  show  his  hand,"  and  to  show  it  on  the  side 
of  secession  and  war. 

Governor  Vance  was  elected  as  an  anti-secessionist,  even  after  he  had 
drawn  his  sword  as  a  Confederate  colonel.  But  during  the  progress  of  the 
war,  his  sympathies  gradually  became  enlisted  in  the  success  of  the  cause 
which  his  official  position  required  him  to  support.  Before  the  close  of 
the  contest  he  was  ranked  among  the  foremost  "  war  governors/'  for  the 
energy  and  efficiency  of  his  measures.  But  when  further  resistance  was  no 
longer  possible,  when  Lee  and  Johnston  surrendered,  when  Mr.  Davis 
and  his  government  abandoned  Richmond,  and  when  Governor  Vance  him 
self  found  it  necessary  to  flee  before  Sherman's  advancing  army,  he  had 
the  wisdom  and  the  regard  for  the  welfare  of  the  people,  to  issue  an 
earnest  appeal  in  behalf  of  peace  and  order  on  April  28,  1865.  This  appeal, 
and  the  admirable  general  orders  issued  at  the  same  time  by  Major-General 
Schofield,  had  no  doubt  a  large  share  in  the  almost  immediate  restoration  of 
peace  and  good  order  within  the  state.  General  Schofield  was  practically 
the  military  governor  of  North  Carolina  until  May  29th.  Then  President 
Johnson  superseded  him  by  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Holden  as  provisional 
governor,  to  carry  on  the  work  of  reconstruction.  The  provisional  governor 
announced  by  proclamation,  on  June  12,  1865,  his  purpose  to  order  an 
election  of  delegates  to  a  convention,  and  to  appoint  justices  of  the  peace 
to  administer  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  hold  the  election.  The  conven 
tion  was  duly  elected  by  the  class  of  people  who  could  run  the  gauntlet  of 
President  Johnson's  stringent  conditions.  It  met  at  Raleigh,  the  seat  of 
government,  on  Oct.  2,  1865.  It  was  composed  of  men  who  for  the  most 
part  had  opposed  secession.  They  had  never  been  in  hearty  sympathy  with 
the  attempts  to  overthrow  the  general  government.  But  there  was,  per 
haps,  not  one  among  them  who  came  up  to  the  Republican  standard  of 
loyalty.  They  were  not  only  compromised  by  having  given  some  sort  of 
"aid,  counsel,  countenance,  or  encouragement"  to  the  rebellion,  but  they 
were  all  opposed  to  the  radical  changes  in  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
state  which  were  required  by  the  Republicans.  They  cheerfully  complied 
with  the  demand  for  the  repeal  of  the  ordinance  of  secession.  They  con- 


NORTH  CAROLINA  SEEKS  HER  FEDERAL  RELATIONS.  38$ 

ceded  the  fact  that  slavery  had  been  abolished  by  the  President's  procla 
mation  and  by  the  disastrous  results  of  the  rebellion.  They  accordingly 
made  no  objection  to  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  for 
ever  excluding  that  institution  from  the  state.  They  complied  with  the 
President's  demand  for  the  repudiation  of  the  whole  war  debt,  though  not 
without  some  reluctance.  The  best  "  Union  men"  among  them  had  lent 
money  to  the  state,  or  to  the  counties,  to  equip  and  to  provide  comforts  for 
their  friends  and  neighbors,  their  sons  and  kindred,  when  they  were  about  to 
march  to  the  field.  Nothing  but  the  imperative  demand  of  the  President 
and  Secretary  Seward  could  have  induced  the  convention  to  repudiate  this 
class  of  claims.  But  the  convention  obeyed  the  unavoidable  behest,  and  its 
work  was  ratified  by  the  people. 

The  ordinance  in  regard  to  secession  is  remarkable  for  the  decided  and 
hearty  manner  in  which  it  disposes  of  the  subject.  It  reads  as  follows  :  '''•Be 
it  ordained  by  the  delegates  of  the  people  of  North  Carolina,  in  conven 
tion  assembled,  and  it  is  hereby  declared  and  ordained:  That  the  ordi 
nance  of  the  Convention  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  ratified  on  the  2ist 
day  of  November,  1789,  which  adopted  and  ratified  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  also  all  acts  and  parts  of  acts  of  the  General  Assembly, 
ratifying  and  adopting  amendments  to  the  said  Constitution,  are  now,  and 
at  all  times  since  the  adoption  and  ratification  thereof  have  been  in  full 
force  and  effect,  notwithstanding  the  supposed  ordinance  of  the  2oth  of 
May,  1861,  declaring  the  same  to  be  repealed,  rescinded  and  abrogated ;  and 
the  said  supposed  ordinance  is  now,  and  at  all  times  hath  been  null  and 
void."  This  ordinance  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  convention.  It 
was  ratified  by  the  popular  vote,  together  with  the  one  prohibiting  slavery. 
Slavery  was  abolished  by  another  ordinance,  without  a  preamble,  such  as 
was  employed  by  the  other  state  conventions,  implying  acquiescence  in  a 
necessity.  It  simply  declared  —  "that  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude, 
otherwise  than  for  crimes  whereof  the  parties  shall  have  been  duly  con 
victed,  shall  be,  and  is  hereby  forever  prohibited  within  the  state." 

In  the  subsequent  election,  Provisional  Governor  Holden  was  defeated  by 
Jonathan  Worth ;  a  result  which  greatly  disappointed  the  President.  The 
legislature  chosen  ratified  the  constitutional  amendment  proposed  by  Con 
gress  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the  Union,  with  only  six  dis 
senting  votes.  This  and  similar  acts  of  ratification  of  the  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  by  the  seceded  states,  as  conditions  of  restoration  to  their 
rights,  were  held  by  many  to  be  invalid, — being  performed  under  duress, 
as  was  alleged.  Mr.  Worth,  who  was  elected  governor  under  the  newly 
formed  constitution,  received  32,529  votes  to  25,809  cast  for  Governor 
Holden.  Both  candidates  were  regarded  as  Union  men  during  the  war. 
Mr.  Worth  was  a  Whig,  of  Quaker  ancestry.  He  had  never  wavered  in  his 
allegiance  to  the  Union,  except  so  far  as  it  became  necessary  to  accept  citi- 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

zenship  under  the  de  facto  Confederate  government.  He  was  a  man  of 
rigid  integrity,  tenacious  of  his  principles,  and  as  little  inclined  to  the  Re 
publican  party,  with  its  radical  principles,  as  to  the  secession  Democracy. 

Governor  Holden,  prior  to  the  war,  was  a  Democratic  editor  and  leader. 
He  had  taken  strong  ground  in  favor  of  the  right  of  secession,  and  of  the 
imperative  duty  of  secession,  on  the  part  of  the  South,  in  the  event  of  the 
election  of  an  abolitionist  to  the  Presidency.  This  was  his  position  in  1856, 
when  there  seemed  to  be  a  possibility  of  the  election  of  Fremont.  But  in 
1859  he  began  to  withdraw  his  support  from  the  secessionists ;  and  in  1861 
he  took  a  leading  part  with  the  conservatives,  who  were  for  the  most  part 
Whigs,  against  secession  as  the  u  rightful  remedy"  for  Southern  griev 
ances.  This  change  of  position  is  attributed  by  his  enemies  to  the  fact  that 
he  was  not  nominated  for  governor.  He  was  elected  to  the  state  convention 
in  February,  1861,  by  the  people  of  Wake  County,  along  with  the  late  Mr. 
Badger,  as  a  Unionist.  But  as  a  member  of  the  convention,  Mr.  Holden, 
like  all  others  of  similar  views,  succumbed  to  the  overwhelming  pressure 
of  Southern  opinion.  Those  were  "  times  that  tried  men's  souls."  Among 
the  Unionists  of  the  South  who  then  participated  in  public  affairs,  there 
was  not  one  who  did  not  yield  a  passive  or  active  obedience  to  the  inflexi 
ble  will  of  the  ruling  class.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  alternative 
for  a  man  of  earnest  convictions  of  duty  and  high  resolves  and  purposes, 
but  to  get  out  from  among  them,  or  to  become  a  martyr.  Mr.  Holden,  as  an 
old  and  practiced  politician,  yielded,  and  yielded  gracefully.  He  voted  for 
the  ordinance  of  secession,  and  not  without  the  manifestation  of  a  cordial 
sympathy  with  the  cause.  His  declaration  that  he  would  leave  the  pen 
with  which  he  affixed  his  signature  to  the  fatal  paper  as  an  heir-loom  to 
his  posterity  was  doubtless  inspired  by  the  desire  to  regain  the  confidence 
of  his  former  friends  and  associates.  His  pledge  of  "  the  last  dollar  and 
the  last  man"  in  the  state  to  the  cause  was  probably  given  in  the  same 
policy.  But  if  such  was  his  expectation,  it  utterly  failed  him.  The  breach, 
so  far  from  closing  up,  grew  wider.  Mr.  Holden  gradually  drifted  into  the 
ranks  of  the  disaffected  and  despairing  subjects  of  the  Confederacy.  His 
newspaper,  the  Standard,  became  their  organ.  In  his  capacity  of  editor 
of  a  newspaper  which  was  not  in  sympathy  with  the  cause,  he  came  to 
be  regarded  as  a  public  enemy  of  secession.  He  was  subjected  to  galling 
insult  and  persecution.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  sincerity  of  the  joy 
with  which  he  hailed  the  overthrow  of  the  Confederacy  and  the  restoration 
of  the  Union.  It  was  to  his  career  as  a  successful  Democratic  editor  and 
party  leader  that  he  owed  his  appointment  by  President  Johnson.  The 
latter,  a  native  of  Raleigh,  and  thoroughly  conversant  with  North  Carolina 
politics,  was  in  full  sympathy  with  Mr.  Holden  in  his  hatred  of  the  seces 
sion  leaders,  and  in  his  distrust  of  the  Whigs.  Each  had  risen  from  poverty 
to  eminence  and  influence  ;  and  each  had  relied  on  the  support  of  the  masses, 


PEDDLING  AMNESTY  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA.  387 

rather  than  on  the  favor  of  the  wealthy  and  aristocratic  leaders  of  the  De 
mocracy.  Their  support,  in  former  years,  of  these  leaders  had  been  regarded 
as  highly  conducive,  if  not  essential,  to  the  success  of  the  party  in  the  two 
states  to  which  they  belonged,  but  they  were  never  favorites  with  the  aris 
tocracy. 

It  was  with  such  antecedents  that  Mr.  Holden  was  appointed  provisional 
governor  of  North  Carolina.  The  work  of  reconstruction  would  have  tasked 
the  resources  of  any  man.  He  was  expected  to  reconcile  a  high-spirited  and 
defeated  people  to  the  great  revolution  in  the  social  order  which  followed 
from  the  overthrow  of  secession.  He  had  to  preserve  the  peace  be 
tween  the  white  and  colored  races  under  their  changed  conditions ;  and  to 
enforce  equal  laws  between  men  who,  up  to  that  time,  had  stood  to  each 
other  in  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  To  accomplish  these  ends  the 
governor  should  have  possessed,  or  have  set  about  acquiring,  the  confidence 
and  esteem  of  the  best  portion  of  society.  He  should  have  endeavored  to 
draw  to  his  support  every  man  whose  character  and  whose  interests  in 
society  were  guarantees  and  pledges  of  a  desire  to  see  peace  and  order 
restored.  This  Governor  Holden  failed  to  do.  His  solicitude  seemed  to  be, 
to  form  a  party  devoted  to  President  Johnson  and  himself,  rather  than  to 
reform  society  by  giving  his  confidence  to  men  who  could  be  relied  on  to 
stand  by  the  laws,  and  by  the  renewed  pledges  of  fidelity  to  the  Union.  It 
was  impossible  for  any  one  to  imagine,  for  instance,  that  Governor  Graham 
would  be  false  to  his  oath  of  allegiance,  that  he  would  become  the  leader  of 
a  guerrilla  band,  or  that  he  would  in  any  way  give  countenance  to  any  des 
perate  or  unlawful  enterprise.  The  same  might  be  said  of  the  great  body 
of  the  property-holders  in  the  state,  and  of  the  people  at  large.  But  the 
former  were  disfranchised.  Mr.  Johnson's  "  policy"  put  every  man  who 
was  deemed  to  be  worth  twenty  thousand  dollars  under  the  ban,  and  left  it 
to  the  discretion  of  Mr.  Holden  to  say  how  long  they  should  remain  under  it. 
The  execution  of  this  u  policy"  was  called  by  Mr.  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania, 
u  peddling  amnesty."  There  was  never  a  suspicion  that  the  business  was 
attended  by  pecuniary  corruption ;  but  that  amnesty  was  withheld,  and 
granted,  from  mere  party  considerations,  is  a  proposition  too  plain  to  be  con 
troverted.  Many  who  had  been  active  secessionists  were  promptly  pardoned  ; 
while  many  others  who  had  reluctantly  acquiesced  in  secession  were  refused 
pardon.  This  policy  failed,  of  course,  to  win  over  the  better  part  of  the  peo 
ple.  It  was  pursued  ever  after  by  the  Republican  administrations,  but  it 
never  succeeded  in  any  one  state.  If  the  contrary  policy  had  been  adopted, 
of  calling  on  all  law-abiding  citizens  of  the  South  to  stand  by  the  govern 
ment  —  not  by  the  party  in  power  —  in  the  preservation  of  peace  and  the 
enforcement  of  the  laws  ;  and  if  the  best  and  highest  characters  in  the  South 
—  not  the  violent,  or  extreme  men,  but  the  wise,  discreet,  substantial  men  — 


388  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

had  been  called  on  to  assist  in  the  work  of  reconstruction,  the  best  results 
would  have  followed.     This,  to  some  extent,  was  the  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln. 

Under  the  amended  state  constitution  an  act  was  passed  in  March,  1866, 
"  concerning  negroes  and  persons  of  color,  or  of  mixed  blood."  It  declared 
that  negroes  and  their  issue,  even  where  one  ancestor  in  each  preceding  gen 
eration  to  the  fourth  inclusive  was  white,  should  be  deemed  persons  of  color. 
This  was  the  ante-bellum  definition  of  persons  of  mixed  blood.  It  is  still 
the  law,  and  may  be  brought  into  requisition  with  reference  to  prohibited 
marriages.  The  same  statute  gave  to  negroes  all  the  rights  of  white  persons 
before  the  courts,  in  prosecuting  and  defending  suits.  It  made  them  competent 
witnesses  in  all  cases  of  law  or  equity  in  which  persons  of  color  were  con 
cerned.  Their  exclusion  from  the  witness-box  in  cases  involving  the  rights 
of  white  persons  only,  was  unwise.  It  was  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  ;  but 
it  cannot  be  regarded  an  oppressive  regulation  for  the  colored  race. 
Under  the  law  of  slavery  in  this  state  and  throughout  the  South,  the  mar 
riage  relation  between  slaves  was  not  recognized.  It  might  be  broken  by 
either  party,  or  by  the  masters.  This  barbarism  was  removed.  The  laws 
relating  to  marriage  were  made  applicable  to  the  colored  population ;  and 
where  a  man  and  woman,  lately  slaves,  had  lived  together  as  man  and  wife, 
they  were  to  be  deemed  lawfully  married  from  the  commencement  of 
their  cohabitation.  They  were  required  to  go  before  the  clerk  of  the 
county  court  and  acknowledge  the  cohabitation.  Of  this  a  record  was  to  be 
made,  which  was  to  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  marriage. 

On  May  24,  1866,  the  convention  of  the  preceding  year  met  pursuant  to 
adjournment.  It  made  amendments  that  were  found  to  be  necessary  in  order 
to  induce  the  military  commander  to  relax  his  hold  upon  the  state  and  people, 
and  allow  the  laws  to  be  enforced  by  the  civil  officers.  The  governor  in 
a  message  stated  that  General  Robinson,  then  in  charge  of  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau,  was  desirous  of  turning  over  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  state  courts 
all  cases  relating  to  the  freedmen,  but  that  he  could  not  do  so  in  consequence 
of  certain  provisions  of  the  recent  act  of  the  legislature  in  regard  to  negroes. 
This  act  restricted  negro  testimony,  and  it  inflicted  on  a  negro,  and  on  a 
white  man,  different  penalties  for  the  same  crime.  This  discrimination  be 
tween  the  races  was  at  once  removed  by  the  convention.  The  general  there 
upon  turned  over  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  to  the  civil  courts.  Other 
changes  were  made  ;  but  the  whole  constitution  being  submitted  to  the  people 
for  ratification,  it  was  voted  down,  though  by  a  vote  of  less  than  two  thousand 
in  above  forty-one  thousand.  Governor  Worth  was  re-elected  in  August  by 
a  large  majority  of  the  small  vote  given.  He  was  superseded  in  the  early 
part  of  1867,  under  the  Reconstruction  acts,  by  Gen.  Daniel  E.  Sickles,  the 
military  commander  of  the  district.  Thus  North  Carolina  continued  to  be  a 
44  conquered  province." 


CHAPTER  XXII. 


TEMPORARY  ORGANIZATIONS  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

MISSISSIPPI  AND  HER  GOVERNORS  —  JUDGE  SHARKEY— PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S 
TERSE  ORDER  — LEGISLATION  IN  DETAIL  — GEORGIA  RECONSTRUCTED  — HER 
TERRIBLE  CONDITION  IN  1865  — ACTION  OF  HER  PEOPLE— TEXAS  RECON 
STRUCTED—GOVERNOR  HAMILTON  AND  HIS  PROCLAMATIONS —ALABAMA- 
VANDALISM  THERE— GOVERNOR  PARSONS'  DESCRIPTION  OF  IT -HIS  SER 
VICES—ALABAMA  CONVENTION.— OJJARREL  OVER  THE  EPISCOPAL  PRAYERS 
MEDDLESOME  MILITARY  ORDER— SOUTH  CAROLINA  —  BRECKENRIDGE  ON 
THE  SOUTH  CAROLINA  CHI VALRY  —  GOVERNORS  MAGRATH,  PERRY,  AND 
ORR  -  OBSTACLES  OVERCOME. 

GENERAL  CLARK  was  the  governor  of  Mississippi  when  the 
Confederate  armies  surrendered.     He  called  an  extra  session  of 
the  legislature,  to  meet  on  the  i8th  of  May,  1865  ;  but  General 
Canby,  by  direction  of  the  President,  forbade  the  meeting  of  that 
body.     On  June  13,  Judge  William  A.  Sharkey  was  appointed  provisional 
governor  by  the  President,  with  powers  like  those  conferred  upon  Governor 
Holden,  of  North  Carolina.      A  convention  was  then  called  by  Governor 
Sharkey,  the  members  to  be  elected  on  August  7,  and  the  voters  to  have  the 
same  qualifications  as  those  prescribed  in  the  North  Carolina  proclamation. 

Judge  Sharkey  was  a  lawyer  who  had  a  thoroughly  professional  mind. 
He  could  drive  a  legal  proposition  through  every  impediment.  It  may  not 
do  to  liken  him  to  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  who  gave  such  logical  decisions  that 
they  required  no  precedent  to  support  them.  For  eighteen  years  he  presided 
as  chief  justice  of  the  High  Court  of  Errors  and  Appeals  in  Mississippi. 
In  that  domain  he  had  no  peer  in  his  state.  He  was  a  Tennessee  man, 
born  on  the  River  Holston,  just  before  the  incoming  of  the  present  century. 
His  maternal  grandfather  was  a  German  belonging  to  the  Rhine.  His  father 
was  an  Irishman  whose  name  was  Patrick  Sharkey.  This  combination  pre 
saged  very  much  to  the  credit  of  the  chancellor  who  became  so  famous,  and 
who  played  such  an  important  part  during  the  war.  When  a  boy  of  fifteen, 
young  Sharkey  entered  the  army  of  General  Jackson.  He  was  a  substitute 


390  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

for  an  uncle.  He  was  at  the  battle  of  New  Orleans,  and  witnessed  the  over 
throw  of  the  British  on  the  Plains  of  Chalmette.  His  military  fame  was  won 
on  the  8th  of  January,  1815.  After  that  adventure  he  returned  to  Tennessee. 
There,  at  a  school  of  some  note  in  Greenville,  he  learned  more  or  less  of  the 
English  branches  of  education,  and  he  afterwards  read  law  with  Dr.  Hill,  of 
Lebanon,  Tennessee.  After  that  he  went  to  Mississippi,  where  his  ability, 
integrity,  and  genius  for  the  law  gave  him  a  large  practice.  In  1827,  he  was 
sent  to  the  legislature.  He  was  an  eminent  judge  as  early  as  1832.  No  man 
who  ever  sat  upon  the  bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Errors  and  Appeals  in 
Mississippi  settled  more  questions  or  made  more  authoritative  precedents 
than  Judge  Sharkey.  His  work  in  the  Mississippi  state  reports  is  a  monu 
ment  to  his  legal  fame.  He  had  an  immense  treasure  of  common  sense. 
He  never  failed  in  minute  detail.  He  never  failed  on  a  legal  principle. 
When  he  left  the  bench  in  1850  it  was  to  rescue  his  little  fortune.  President 
Fillmore  tendered  him  the  position  of  Secretary  of  War,  which  he  declined. 
He  preferred  to  devote  his  talent  and  thought  to  the  Constitution.  Years 
afterwards,  when  the  dire  work  of  civil  war  had  ended,  he  became  one  of 
the  heroes  of  reconstruction.  As  stated,  President  Johnson  made  him  pro 
visional  governor  of  Mississippi.  It  was  a  difficult,  delicate,  and  most  un 
grateful  office  ;  yet  all  parties  were  satisfied  with  his  administration.  At  the 
first  election  under  the  new  system  he  was  chosen  Senator  from  his  state. 
But  the  reconstruction  policy  of  the  President  having  been  abrogated,  he  was, 
with  other  Southern  members,  refused  a  seat.  It  would  have  been  better, 
perhaps,  if  he  had  been  elected  governor.  He  returned  to  Mississippi  and 
continued  to  practice  his  profession.  The  writer  remembers  him  well  as  a 
man  of  kind,  polished  manner,  with  a  rare  fund  of  conversation,  as  brilliant 
as  it  was  attractive.  He  was  a  man  who  looked  to  the  unseen  world.  He 
was  a  strict  Methodist,  in  which  communion  he  died,  but  he  was  worthy  to  be 
called,  as  Wendell  Phillips  once  said  of  Samuel  Adams,  "  one  of  Plutarch's 
men."  His  name  is  all  over,  and  all  through,  and  all  under  the  jurisprudence 
of  his  state.  No  one  lives  so  gloriously  in  the  annals  of  Mississippi  as  Judge 
William  L.  Sharkey. 

It  is  said  of  Judge  Sharkey  by  men  of  his  own  state  who  took  part  in 
its  resurrection,  that  he  was  not  successful  in  the  office  of  governor ;  that 
he  did  not  materially  assist  in  restoring  its  statehood  or  its  prosperity.  Their 
criticism  is,  that  he  was  a  specimen  of  that  class  of  wonderful  men  who  make 
great  judges,  jurists,  and  chancellors,  but  are  utter  failures  in  that  field  of 
politics  in  which  motives  must  be  divined  at  each  stage  of  human  vicissitude 
and  progress.  However  this  may  be,  it  must  be  said  that  he  had  little  op 
portunity  to  show  much  administrative  ability  as  governor. 

His  successor,  Governor  Humphreys,  accomplished  nothing.  He  could 
not  have  done  any  good  for  the  state,  with  such  a  legislature  as  came  into 
power  with  him.  His  recommendations  to  that  body  might  have  suited  the 


REORGANIZATION  IN  MISSISSIPPI.  391 

temper  of  the  people  of  the  state,  but  it  is  not  improbable  that  Judge 
Sharkey's  recommendations  would  have  better  impressed  them  with  the 
importance  of  liberal  action  towards  the  freedmen.  Judge  Sharkey  had 
visited  Washington,  and  had  there  met  the  leaders  of  both  parties.  He 
knew  the  vital  necessity  of  temperate  action  in  the  South. 

The  convention  called  by  Provisional  Governor  Sharkey  met  at  the  city 
of  Jackson*  on  the  i4th  of  August,  1865.  The  next  day  the  governor  re 
ceived  a  dispatch  from  President  Johnson,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy : 

44 1  am  gratified  to  see  that  you  have  organized  your  convention  without 
difficulty.  I  hope  that  without  delay  your  convention  will  amend  your  state 
constitution,  abolishing  slavery,  and  denying  to  all  future  legislatures  the 
power  to  legislate  that  there  is  property  in  man  ;  also  that  they  will  adopt  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  abolishing  slavery.  If 
you  could  extend  the  elective  franchise  to  all  persons  of  color  who  can  read 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  English,  and  write  their  names,  and 
to  all  persons  of  color  who  own  real  estate  valued  at  not  less  than  two  hun 
dred  and  fifty  dollars,  and  pay  taxes  thereon,  you  would  completely  disarm 
the  adversary,  and  set  an  example  the  other  states  will  follow.  This  you  can 
do  with  perfect  safety,  and  you  thus  place  the  Southern  States,  in  reference  to 
free  persons  of  color,  upon  the  same  basis  with  the  free  states.  I  hope  and 
trust  your  convention  will  do  this,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  radicals,  who 
are  wild  upon  negro  franchise,  will  be  completely  foiled  in  their  attempt  to 
keep  the  Southern  States  from  renewing  their  relations  to  the  Union  by  not 
accepting  their  Senators  and  Representatives.  ANDREW  JOHNSON." 

This  was  excellent  advice.  It  would  have  been  much  better  for  the  peo 
ple  of  Mississippi  and  of  the  South  had  it  been  followed.  It  would  have  left 
no  pretext  for  denying  the  state  her  Federal  rights.  The  Mississippians  did 
not  credit  the  President  with  good  intentions.  They  were  not  in  a  mood  to 
receive  advice  from  him.  They  were  familiar  with  his  career  during  the 
war,  and  immediately  following  its  close.  To  them  he  seemed  to  be  inspired 
with  all  the  bitter  antagonism  to  the  South  which  animated  the  Northern 
radicals.  His  recommendation  was  regarded  as  the  essence  of  radical 
policy.  Had  not  President  Lincoln,  in  the  early  part  of  the  preceding  year, 
March  13,  1864,  addressed  a  letter  similar  in  purpose  to  Provisional  Gov 
ernor  Hahn,  of  Louisiana?  No  ;  Mississippi  was  not  yet  prepared  to  accept 
such  advice.  Mr.  Lincoln's  letter  is  brief.  It  is  worthy  of  a  place  in  this 
connection : 

"  MY  DEAR  SIR  :  I  congratulate  you  on  having  fixed  your  name  in  his 
tory  as  the  first  free  state  governor  of  Louisiana.  Now  you  are  about  to 
have  a  convention,  which,  among  other  things,  will  define  the  elective  fran 
chise,  I  barely  suggest,  for  your  private  consideration,  whether  some  of  the 
colored  people  may  not  be  let  in  —  as,  for  instance,  the  very  intelligent,  and 


392  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

especially  those  who  have  fought  gallantly  in  our  ranks.  They  would  proba 
bly  help,  in  some  trying  time  to  come,  to  keep  the  jewel  of  liberty  in  the 
family  of  freedom.  But  this  is  only  a  suggestion,  not  to  the  public,  but  to 
you  alone.  Yours  truly,  A.  LINCOLN." 

But  the  Mississippi  convention  was  not  alone  in  its  objection  to  negro 
suffrage.  Even  the  Republicans  of  the  North  were  slow  to  adopt  such  a 
policy  for  their  own  states.  Nevertheless,  the  convention  did  some  notable 
work.  It  did  enough  to  disarm  even  the  radicals,  if  the  latter  had  not  been 
determined  to  make  the  South  the  stronghold  of  their  party.  The  conven 
tion  passed  ordinances  for  the  amendment  of  the  state  constitution  : 

First.  Declaring  null  and  void  the  ordinance  of  secession,  passed  in 
state  convention  on  Jan.  9,  1861. 

Second.  Declaring  that,  slavery  having  been  destroyed,  neither  slavery 
nor  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the  punishment  of  crimes 
whereof  the  party  should  have  been  duly  convicted,  should  thereafter  exist 
in  the  state.  This  ordinance  further  provided  that  the  legislature  at  its  next 
session,  and  thereafter  as  the  public  welfare  might  require,  should  provide 
by  law  for  the  protection  and  security  of  the  freedmen  and  their  property, 
and  guard  them  and  the  state  from  any  evils  that  might  arise  from  their 
sudden  emancipation. 

An  amendment  to  the  twelfth  section  of  the  State  Declaration  of  Rights 
contained  a  germ  of  evil  consequences  to  the  state.  It  had  much  to  do  with 
defeating  President  Johnson's  beneficent  plans  for  reconstruction.  That  sec 
tion  provided  —  "  That  no  person  shall,  for  any  indictable  offense,  be  pro 
ceeded  against  criminally  by  information  ;  except  in  cases  arising  in  the  land 
and  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia  when  in  actual  service,  or,  by  leave  of  the 
court,  for  misdemeanor  in  office."  The  amendment  provided  —  "That  the 
legislature,  in  cases  of  petit  larceny,  assault,  assault  and  battery,  affray,  riot, 
unlawful  assembly,  drunkenness,  vagrancy,  and  other  misdemeanors  of  like 
character,  may  dispense  with  an  inquest  of  a  grand  jury,  and  may  authorize 
prosecutions  before  justices  of  the  peace,  or  such  other  inferior  court  as  may 
be  established  by  the  legislature  ;  and  the  proceedings  in  such  cases  shall  be 
regulated  by  law." 

The  ordinances  were  adopted,  and  an  election  was  held  on  Oct.  9,  1865, 
for  governor  and  other  state  officers,  congressmen,  and  members  of  the 
state  legislature.  The  legislature  elected  under  the  new  constitution  met  on 
October  i6th,  of  the  same  year.  Benjamin  G.  Humphreys,  a  prominent  gen 
tleman  of  the  state,  was  elected  governor.  He  recommended,  in  his  message, 
that  the  negroes  be  placed  on  the  footing  of  white  men  as  to  the  right  of 
suing  and  being  sued,  and  of  giving  testimony  ;  that  the  negroes  be  encouraged 
to  engage  in  the  pursuits  of  industry ;  and  that  the  militia  laws  be  revised  so 
as  to  protect  the  people  "  against  insurrection,  or  any  possible  combination 
of  vicious  white  men  with  negroes." 


REORGANIZATION  IN  MISSISSIPPI.  393 

This  legislature  refused  to  ratify  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the  United 
States  Constitution,  abolishing  slavery.  The  members  legislated  with  a 
view  to  recognize  as  little  as  possible  any  of  the  results  of  the  war.  As  an 
evidence  of  gratitude  toward  those  who  had  fought  for  Southern  independ 
ence,  they  appropriated  twenty  per  centum  of  the  state  revenues  "  for  the  re 
lief  of  the  destitute  and  disabled  Confederate  States  soldiers."  The  old 
United  States  pensioners  who  had  fought  for  the  Confederacy  were  exempted 
from  payment  of  state  taxes.  There  was  nothing  objectionable  in  these  lib 
eral  provisions  in  a  state  where  all  the  tax-payers  had  been  to  some  extent 
in  sympathy  with  secession.  They  were,  however,  construed  in  Congress, 
with  other  provisions  passed  by  that  body,  as  giving  evidence  that  the  peo 
ple  were  not  fit  to  conduct  their  own  state  government. 

Pursuant  to  the  spirit  of  the  governor's  recommendation,  and  to  the 
spirit  of  the  people  also,  the  legislature  passed,  on  November  22d  —  "An 
Act  to  regulate  the  relation  of  master  and  apprentice."  This  act  related 
exclusively  to  the  colored  race.  It  required  sheriffs,  justices  of  the  peace, 
and  other  civil  officers  to  report  to  the  probate  courts  of  the  several  coun 
ties,  semi-annually,  "  all  freedmen,  free  negroes,  and  mulattoes,  under  the 
age  of  eighteen,"  who  were  orphans,  or  whose  parents  had  abandoned  or 
failed  to  provide  for  them.  The  courts  were  required  to  bind  as  apprentices 
all  such  persons,  on  such  terms  as  the  judge  might  direct,  "  having  a  par 
ticular  care  to  the  interest  of  said  minors."  It  was  provided  that  the  minors 
should  be  bound  to  their  former  owners,  when,  in  the  opinion  of  the  court, 
the  latter  were  persons  suitable  for  that  purpose.  The  court  was  enjoined 
to  have  a  particular  care  of  the  interests  of  such  minors.  The  males  were  to 
be  bound  until  they  were  twenty-one  years  old,  and  the  females  until  their 
eighteenth  year.  The  usual  authority  for  the  moderate  chastisement  of  ap 
prentices  was  given,  and  for  their  recovery  if  they  should  run  away. 

A  vagrant  act  was  passed  on  November  24th.  It  provided  that  all  freed 
men,  free  negroes,  and  mulattoes,  over  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  who,  on 
or  after  the  second  Monday  in  January,  1866,  might  be  found  without  lawful 
employment  or  business,  or  unlawfully  assembling  themselves,  either  in  the 
day  or  night  time,  and  all  white  persons  so  assembling,  or  usually  asso 
ciating  with  them  on  terms  of  equality,  or  living  in  adultery  or  fornication 
with  a  freed-woman,  free  negro,  or  mulatto,  should  be  deemed  vagrants, 
and  on  conviction  thereof  be  fined  in  a  sum  not  exceeding,  in  the  case 
of  a  freedman,  free  negro,  or  mulatto,  fifty  dollars,  and  of  a  white  man, 
two  hundred  dollars,  and  be  imprisoned  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  the 
free  negro  not  exceeding  ten  days,  and  the  white  man  not  exceeding  six 
months.  Jurisdiction  was  conferred  on  all  justices  of  the  peace,  mayors, 
and  aldermen,  to  try  offenders  against  the  act  without  a  jury,  and  to  sentence 
them.  Sheriffs  and  constables  were  punishable  for  neglecting  to  report 
25 


394  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

such  cases.  If  the  convicted  parties  failed  to  pay  the  fine  within  five  days 
after  its  imposition,  they  were  to  be  hired  out  for  a  sum  equal  thereto,  the 
proceeds  to  be  paid  into  the  county  treasury.  By  another  act  a  poll  tax,  not 
to  exceed  one  dollar,  was  imposed  on  every  freedman,  free  negro,  and  mu 
latto,  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  sixty,  for  the  support  of  the  poor. 
Failure  to  pay  this  tax  was  made  prima  facie  evidence  of  vagrancy,  and  the 
party  was  to  be  dealt  with  accordingly. 

An  act  to  confer  civil  rights  on  the  colored  people  was  passed  on  Nov. 
25,  1865.  It  gave  them  the  right  to  sue  and  be  sued,  plead  and  be  im- 
pleaded,  in  all  the  courts  of  law  and  equity  in  the  state  ;  and  to  intermarry 
with  each  other,  but  not  with  white  people.  Power  was  given  them  to  ac 
quire  and  hold  personal  property,  and  to  dispose  of  it  in  the  same  manner 
as  white  people.  But  it  was  expressly  provided  that  no  colored  person 
should  be  allowed  to  rent  or  lease  any  lands  or  tenements,  except  in  incor 
porated  towns  or  cities ;  and  in  the  latter  places  the  corporate  authorities 
were  to  control  this  privilege.  The  right  to  testify  in  the  courts  was 
granted  to  the  colored  people,  but  only  in  civil  and  criminal  cases,  where 
any  of  them  should  be  parties,  as  plaintiffs  or  defendants.  On  and  after  the 
second  Monday  in  January  of  each  year,  every  colored  person  was  required 
to  have  a  written  certificate  from  a  city  or  county  officer,  showing  that  he  had 
a  home  and  employment.  If  a  laborer  should  quit  the  service  of  his  employer 
before  the  expiration  of  his  contract,  without  good  cause,  he  was  to  forfeit 
his  wages  for  the  time  he  had  served.  He  was  subject  to  be  arrested  by  any 
civil  officer,  or  other  person,  and  brought  back  to  his  employer.  The  offi 
cer  or  other  person  making  the  arrest  was  to  be  entitled  to  a  fee  of  five  dol 
lars,  and  ten  cents  per  mile  from  the  place  of  arrest  to  the  place  of  delivery. 
This  was  to  be  paid  by  the  employer,  and  held  as  a  set-off  against  the  wages 
of  the  deserter.  The  laborer  was  allowed  the  right  of  complaint  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace,  or  member  of  the  board  of  police.  These  officers  were 
authorized  to  try  and  determine  the  case.  Any  justice  of  the  peace,  on 
affidavit  made  by  the  employer  of  a  colored  laborer  alleging  that  such  laborer 
had  "  illegally  deserted,"  was  required  to  issue  a  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  the 
offender.  The  warrant,  in  such  case,  was  to  be  recognized  as  valid  in  any 
county  in  the  state.  This  so-called  civil  rights  act  made  it  a  penal  offense, 
punishable  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  two  hundred  dollars,  to  entice  away  a  hired 
freedman  from  his  employer. 

By  another  act,  passed  on  November  29th,  the  colored  people  were  forbid 
den  to  keep  or  carry  fire-arms,  or  any  ammunition,  or  knife.  This  act  also 
applied  to  them  in  full  force  all  the  penal  and  criminal  laws  "  defining 
offenses  and  prescribing  the  mode  of  punishment  for  crimes  and  misde 
meanors  committed  by  slaves,  free  negroes,  and  mulattoes,"  except  so  far  as 
the  mode  and  manner  of  trial  and  punishment  had  been  changed  or  altered 
by  law.  This  last  mentioned  provision  was  the  climax  of  legislative  folly. 


REORGANIZATION  IN  GEORGIA.  395 

It  defeated  wholly  the  legitimate  effect  of  the  ordinance  abolishing  slavery. 
In  effect  it  was  a  re-enactment  of  the  old  slave  code. 

It  is  manifest  that  this  legislation  was  conceived  exclusively  in  the  in 
terest  of  the  planters,  with  only  such  reference  (deference  there  was  none) 
to  the  rights  and  welfare  of  the  colored  people  of  the  state  as  was  thought 
necessary  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  Northern  opinion  and  the  new  national 
guarantees  of  freedom.  Assuredly  the  legislature  that  enacted  these  laws 
must  have  been  ignorant  of  the  change  of  sentiment  in  the  North.  It  is 
surprising  that  the  intelligent  men  of  Mississippi  could  have  persuaded 
themselves,  after  the  terrible  experiences  through  which  they  had  passed, 
that  the  triumphant  North,  now  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  anti-slavery 
sentiment,  would  for  a  moment  tolerate  this  new  slave  code.  Such  legisla 
tion  was  far  removed  from  the  temporary  guardianship  of  the  freedmen 
which  Mr.  Lincoln  thought  would  be  necessary  to  prevent  idleness,  va 
grancy,  and  disorder.  What  he  suggested  was  calculated  to  promote  the 
welfare  and  the  improvement  of  the  freedmen,  as  well  as  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  their  former  masters.  Mr.  Johnson  was  aiming,  doubtless,  to 
follow  in  the  footsteps  of  his  predecessor  in  this  regard,  as  far  as  the  change 
of  Northern  feeling  would  permit  him.  It  was  owing  to  this  sort  of  legisla 
tion  in  the  Southern  States  that  Mr.  Johnson's  policy  of  conciliation  was 
defeated.  It  gave  plausible  reasons  for  the  despotic  military  rule  devised  by 
Thaddeus  Stevens  and  his  partisans.  It  was  cited  as  proof  to  the  Northern 
people  that  there  was  no  sincere  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  South  to  acqui 
esce  in  the  freedom  of  the  former  slaves.  It  caused  the  doubting  and  hes 
itating  Republicans  to  overcome  their  constitutional  views,  and  to  decide 
for  immediate  negro  suffrage  as  a  political  necessity. 

The  protracted  struggles  between  the  armies  of  the  Union  and  the  Con 
federacy  in  northern  Georgia,  from  Chattanooga  to  Atlanta,  followed  by 
General  Sherman's  "  march  to  the  sea,"  left  a  scene  of  wide-spread  desola 
tion.  The  correspondents  of  the  day  gave  graphic  descriptions  of  the  desti 
tution  and  suffering  of  all  classes  of  the  people  of  Georgia.  These  descrip 
tions  present  a  picture  shocking  to  contemplate ;  and  yet,  in  view  of  the 
wholesale  destruction  of  property,  the  consumption  and  waste  of  great 
armies,  and  the  disruption  of  social  order  by  which  regular  labor  was  ren 
dered  impossible,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  pictures  were  true  to  the 
life.  One  instance  of  the  prevailing  destitution  is  here  given  :  *'  Thomas  H. 
Moore,  of  respectable  and  even  cultured  address,  introduced  himself  as  the 
agent  for  the  county,  appointed  by  the  state,  for  the  distribution  of  the  sup 
plies  voted  by  the  rebel  legislature  to  the  people  of  northern  Georgia,  after 
Sherman's  passage.  He  said  all  these  supplies  had  been  long  ago  issued. 
He  had  himself,  since,  walked  to  Atlanta  (having  no  horse),  to  procure 
more.  A  few  hundred  pounds  of  provisions  had  been  furnished,  which  he 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

was  now  distributing,  but  these  amounted  to  a  mere  pittance,  and  he  was 
obliged  to  reserve  them  for  those  who  were  already  on  the  verge  of  starvation. 
Women  daily — nay,  hourly,  came  in  from  a  distance  often  and  fifteen  miles, 
to  get  a  few  mouthfuls  to  save  the  lives  of  their  helpless  children. 

u  After  him  came  slave-holders,  the  wealthiest  in  the  county — one  with 
sixty  slaves,  who  complained  that  what  had  once  made  them  the  richest,  now 
made  them  the  poorest.  They  had  nothing  to  feed  these  people,  without 

whose  aid  the  crops  could  not  be  secured.     Mr. had  told  his  negroes 

that  if  they  would  remain  with  him,  now  that  they  were  free,  he  would  com 
pensate  them,  and  share  with  them  his  land,  and  they  were  anxious  to  do  so  ; 
but  —  and  he  called  me  aside  to  tell  me  this  privately  —  the  distributing  offi 
cers  refused  to  furnish  food  to  the  slave-holders,  who,  unless  they  could  get 
aid,  would,  together  with  the  negroes,  starve.  They  told  me  that  no  man  in 
the  county  had  more  than  two  bushels  of  corn  left.  .  .  .  The  com 
mandant  has  mentioned  a  case  that  occurred  yesterday.  A  poor  woman 
came  all  the  way  into  town  on  foot,  from  a  distance  of  twenty  miles,  leaving 
at  home  a  family  of  children  who  had  had  nothing  to  eat  for  twenty-four 
hours." 

Another  press  correspondent  said:  "From  a  recent  report  made  by 
order  of  the  military  authorities,  it  is  ascertained  that  there  are  35,000  men, 
women,  and  children  in  the  counties  of  Georgia  immediately  surrounding 
Atlanta,  who  are  dependent  upon  the  United  States  Government  for  sup 
port  and  preservation  from  death  by  hunger.  In  the  counties  north  of 
Georgia  there  must  be  at  least  as  many  more,  for  at  every  post  and  headquar 
ters  of  the  United  States  forces  hundreds  of  applicants  apply  daily  for  relief. 
To  such  an  extent  does  this  state  of  affairs  prevail,  that  it  seriously  incom 
modes  the  troops,  and  although  every  effort  has  been  made  to  relieve  the  suf 
ferings  of  the  people,  yet  vast  destitution  prevails  among  them.  An  order 
has  recently  been  issued  by  General  Thomas,  directing  that  several  thou 
sand  bushels  of  corn  be  distributed  among  these  poor  people,  which  will 
prove  of  great  benefit.  Still,  the  evil  increases  day  by  day,  by  the  arrival 
of  hundreds  of  poor  refugees  from  points  north  of  here,  especially  from 
Indiana." 

An  ex-Confederate  soldier,  after  stating  the  vast  amount  of  food  issued  to 
the  starving  people,  said:  "  But  before  I  close  I  cannot  help  but  remark 
that  it  must  be  a  matter  of  gratitude,  as  well  as  surprise,  for  our  people 
to  see  a  government  which  was  lately  fighting  us  with  fire,  and  sword, 
and  shell,  now  generously  feeding  our  poor  and  distressed.  In  the  im 
mense  crowds  which  throng  the  distributing-house,  I  notice  the  mothers, 
and  fathers,  and  widows,  and  orphans  of  our  soldiers  who  fought  nobly  — 
and  how  sadly,  too  often  to  the  death,  for  our  loved  South.  Again  the 
Confederate  soldier,  with  one  leg  or  one  arm,  the  crippled,  maimed,  and 
broken,  and  the  worn  and  destitute  men  who  fought  bravely  their  enemies 
then,  their  benefactors  now,  have  their  sacks  filled  and  are  fed." 


REORGANIZATION  IN  GEORGIA.  397 

This  was  the  sad  condition  of  Georgia  on  May  3,  1865,  when  Gov. 
Joseph  E.  Brown  issued  a  proclamation  calling  an  extra  session  of  the  leg 
islature,  to  convene  on  the  22d  of  the  month.  By  direction  of  President 
Johnson,  Major-General  Gilmore  issued  an  order  annulling  this  proclama 
tion,  and  forbidding  the  members  to  assemble.  The  language  used  was 
needlessly  harsh  and  offensive  to  a  fallen  foe,  who,  at  that  time  could  have 
had  no  purpose  of  renewing  hostilities,  and  whose  object,  no  doubt,  was 
the  preservation  of  order,  and  the  preparation  of  the  public  mind  for  the 
inevitable  results  of  the  unsuccessful  cause.  It  is  due  to  Governor  Brown 
to  say  that  he  promptly  acquiesced  in  the  necessity  of  an  unconditional 
surrender.  Although  thrown  out  of  office,  he  issued  an  address  to  the 
people,  urging  them  to  accept  the  fate  thrust  upon  them  by  the  fortunes  of 
war,  and  to  give  their  support,  not  only  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  but  also  to  the  administration  of  President  Johnson.  He  advised 
them  to  take  the  amnesty  oath,  to  return  to  the  Union  in  good  faith,  to  exert 
themselves  for  the  relief  of  the  distressed,  the  repair  of  the  ravages  of  war, 
and  the  restoration  of  peace  and  order  under  the  old  flag,  to  which  all  must 
again  look  for  protection,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific. 

On  the  iyth  of  June,  the  President  appointed  James  Johnson  provisional 
governor  of  Georgia,  with  like  powers  and  duties  to  those  prescribed  for 
the  provisional  governor  of  North  Carolina.  These  have  been  fully  set 
forth  on  preceding  pages.  Governor  Johnson  at  once  called  on  the  people 
to  elect  delegates  to  a  state  convention  on  the  first  Wednesday  in  October. 
The  convention  was  to  assemble  on  the  fourth  Wednesday  of  that  month. 
The  electors  and  delegates  were  to  have  the  same  qualifications  prescribed 
for  those  of  North  Carolina.  Governor  Johnson  set  forth  the  real  state  of 
affairs  in  terms  showing  his  strong  attachment  to  the  Union. 

Men  of  talent  came  forward  as  candidates  for  the  convention.  The  peo 
ple  showed  themselves  ready  and  anxious  for  peace  and  restoration  to  the 
Union.  They  had  felt  the  ravages  and  turmoil  of  the  war.  Their  indus 
tries  and  trade  had  been  disorganized.  The  railroads  were  dilapidated  or 
destroyed.  Eighteen  millions  had  been  added  to  the  public  debt  of  the 
state.  That  addition,  however,  was  easily  disposed  of,  as  there  was  an  im 
perative  necessity  pressing  on  the  convention  for  its  repudiation.  The 
convention  met  on  the  25th  of  October,  and  the  next  day  proceeded  to 
transact  the  important  business  for  which  it  had  been  called.  First  in  order 
was  the  adoption  of  an  ordinance  for  the  repeal  of  the  secession  and  other 
ordinances  which  had  been  passed  in  1861  to  separate  the  state  from  the 
Union.  This  was  done  five  days  afterwards.  The  people  of  Georgia,  by  their 
delegates  to  this  convention,  declared  null  and  void  the  ordinance  adopted 
in  convention  on  Jan.  19,  1861,  to  dissolve  the  Union  between  the  State  of 
Georgia  and  other  states,  together  with  an  ordinance  adopted  on  the  I5th  of 
March,  1861,  to  adopt  and  ratify  the  constitution  of  the  Confederate  States  of 


39$  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

America,  and  all  ordinances  and  resolutions  adopted  between  the  i6th  of  Jan 
uary  and  the  24th  of  March  of  that  year,  which  were  subversive  of  or  antagon 
istic  to  the  civil  and  military  authority  of  the  government  of  the  United  States 
of  America  under  the  Constitution,  and  they  were  then  and  there  repealed. 

The  next  act  of  the  convention  was  to  declare  slavery  abolished.  This 
was  done  by  ordinance,  declaring  that  "The  Government  of  the  United 
States  having,  as  a  war  measure,  proclaimed  all  slaves  held  or  owned  in  the 
state,  emancipated  from  slavery,  and  having  carried  that  proclamation  into 
full  practical  effect ;  therefore,  there  shall  henceforth  be,  within  the  state  of 
Georgia,  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  save  as  a  punishment  of 
crime,  after  legal  conviction  thereof."  It  was  provided  that  this  acquiescence 
in  the  action  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  not  intended  to  act 
as  a  relinquishment,  or  waiver,  or  estoppel  of  such  claim  for  compensation 
for  loss  sustained  by  reason  of  the  emancipation  of  his  slaves,  as  any  citizen 
of  Georgia  might  thereafter  make  upon  the  justice  and  magnanimity  of  that 
government.  This  saving  provision  was  inserted  in  the  ordinance.  It  was 
a  natural,  but  vain  effort  to  save  something  out  of  the  general  wreck.  After 
a  good  deal  of  hesitation,  and  some  strong  urging  by  the  President  and  Sec 
retary  Seward,  the  convention,  on  the  yth  of  November,  declared  the  state 
debt  incurred  in  aid  of  the  rebellion  null  and  void.  The  vote  stood  :  yeas, 
133;  nays,  117.  The  convention  then  adjourned.  The  legislature,  which 
met  on  the  4th  of  December  following,  ratified  the  Thirteenth  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This  legislature  made  some  pro 
vision  for  the  indigent  Confederate  and  state  soldiers,  and  for  the  widows  and 
children  of  those  who  had  died  in  the  service.  Negroes  were  made  compe 
tent  witnesses  in  all  cases  in  which  any  of  the  race  were  parties.  Intermar 
riage  between  the  races  was  prohibited.  It  was  made  a  misdemeanor  for  a 
clerk  of  court  to  issue  a  license  for  such  a  marriage,  or  for  a  minister  of 
religion  or  civil  officer  to  perform  the  marriage  ceremony  between  a  white 
and  a  colored  person.  A  vagrant  act  was  passed,  the  provisions  of  which, 
unlike  the  re-enacted  slave-code  of  Mississippi,  applied  equally  to  white  and 
colored  persons.  An  act  regulating  the  relations  of  master  and  servant  was 
also  passed,  which  made  no  discriminations  as  to  color.  • 

These  proceedings  of  the  Georgia  convention  and  legislature  contrast 
favorably  with  those  of  other  states  on  the  southern  border.  The  more  liberal 
action  of  Georgia  was  doubtless  due  to  the  greater  commercial  and  manufac 
turing  enterprise  and  ambition  of  her  people.  In  those  parts  of  the  South 
where  agriculture  was  the  only  important  interest,  and  slaves  the  only 
laborers,  there  was  ever  the  least  liberality  and  the  severest  discipline  over 
the  servile  class.  The  provisional  governor  of  Georgia  had  the  wisdom  to 
bring  to  his  aid,  as  far  as  it  was  in  his  power,  the  best  talent  in  the  state, 
without  regard  to  the  former  party  connections  of  individuals.  Yet  Georgia 
fared  little  better  than  her  sister  states  in  the  work  of  reconstruction. 


REORGANIZATION  IN  TEXAS.  399 

The  great  distance  of  Texas  from  the  seat  of  the  general  government,  and 
the  sparseness  of  the  population  diffused  over  her  vast  territory,  will  account 
for  the  disorder  which  prevailed  in  that  state  for  some  months  after  the  close 
of  the  war.  The  gorernor  showed  a  laudable  purpose  of  restoring  order, 
and  of  bringing  about  a  restoration  of  the  state  to  her  place  in  the  Union.  To 
these  ends,  he  summoned  the  members  of  the  legislature  to  meet  on  the  i6th 
of  July,  1865.  At  the  same  time  he  ordered  an  election  of  delegates  to  a 
state  convention,  to  be  held  on  the  i9th  of  June,  in  the  hope  of  getting  rid  of 
military  rule.  But  in  this  he  failed. 

On  the  1 7th  of  June,  President  Johnson  appointed  Gen.  Andrew  J. 
Hamilton  provisional  governor.  General  Hamilton  was  a  Texan  by  long 
residence.  He  had  filled  many  important  stations.  His  appointment  super 
seded  the  spontaneous  efforts  at  reconstruction  which  had  been  instituted  by 
his  predecessor,  Governor  Murrah.  The  new  governor  had  been  opposed 
to  secession.  He  had  been  obliged  to  flee  the  state.  He  returned  to  Texas 
in  the  latter  part  of  July,  with  other  refugees.  He  issued  a  proclamation  on 
the  25th  of  that  month,  announcing  the  powers  that  had  been  conferred  on 
him,  and  that  a  state  convention  would  be  called  to  remodel  the  constitution. 
He  did  not  take  immediate  steps  to  make  the  call.  The  election  was  not 
held  until  the  8th  of  January,  1866.  By  a  preceding  proclamation,  the  quali 
fications  of  delegates  and  electors  had  been  stated.  They  were  the  same  as 
those  prescribed  for  North  Carolina.  In  the  meantime,  between  the  assump 
tion  of  authority  by  the  provisional  governor  and  the  institution  of  the  new 
popular  government,  justice  was  administered  by  judges,  magistrates,  and 
officers  temporarily  commissioned  for  that  purpose.  In  his  first  proclama 
tion,  Governor  Hamilton  invited  and  exhorted  the  people  to  engage  in  the 
work  of  reconstructing  local  government  for  themselves.  He  assured  them 
that  the  United  States  Government  had  no  purpose  to  humiliate  the  people 
of  the  South.  At  the  same  time  he  said  to  them  :  "  The  negroes  are  not  only 
free,  but  I  beg  to  assure  my  fellow-citizens  that  the  government  will  protect 
them  in  their  freedom." 

The  following  extract  from  the  proclamation  illustrates  at  once  the  good 
spirit  which  animated  the  governor,  and  the  unconquered  spirit  of  masterdom 
with  which  he  had  to  contend:  "  For  the  time  being,  the  freedmen  are 
recommended  to  engage  with  their  former  masters  for  reasonable  compensa 
tion,  to  labor  at  least  till  the  close  of  the  season  for  gathering  the  present 
crop.  For  them,  generally,  to  do  otherwise  would  be  greatly  to  the  injury 
of  themselves  and  the  community  at  large.  But  let  it  be  understood  that 
combination  among  those  interested  in  securing  their  labor  to  prevent  them 
from  hiring  to  persons  who  will  pay  the  best  price  for  such  labor,  and  to 
ostracize  in  society  those  who  oppose  such  combinations,  will  meet  with  no 
favor  at  the  hands  of  the  people,  or  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
And  candor  compels  me  to  say  to  the  people  of  Texas,  that  if,  in  the  action 


400  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  the  proposed  convention,  the  negro  is  characterized  or  treated  as  less  than 
a  free  man,  our  Senators  and  Representatives  will  seek  in  vain  admission  to 
the  halls  of  Congress.  It  is  indeed  strange  that  men  should  take  a  solemn 
oath  to  faithfully  abide  by  and  support  all  laws  and  proclamations  which 
have  been  made  during  the  existing  rebellion,  with  reference  to  the  emanci 
pation  of  slaves,  and  in  the  next  breath  favor  gradual  emancipation.  It  is 
the  part  of  wisdom  and  the  part  of  duty  to  accept  what  is  inevitable  without 
resistance." 

Three  days  after  Governor  Hamilton  issued  his  proclamation,  Major-Gen- 
eral  Granger,  commanding  the  District  of  Texas,  issued  an  order  from  his 
provost-marshal's  office  at  Galveston,  earnestly  enjoining  all  freedmen  to 
remain  with  their  former  masters,  under  such  labor  contracts  as  would  be 
made,  until  more  permanent  arrangements  could  be  made  by  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau.  The  order  gave  notice  that  cruel  treatment,  or  improper  use  of  the 
authority  given  to  employers,  would  not  be  permitted.  At  the  same  time 
both  parties  to  contracts  would  be  held  equally  bound  to  fulfill  their  condi 
tions.  There  was  a  great  disposition  among  the  freedmen  to  abandon  labor ; 
therefore  the  order  said  that — "No  persons,  formerly  slaves,  will  be  per 
mitted  to  travel  on  the  public  thoroughfares  without  passes  or  permits  from 
their  employers,  or  to  congregate  in  buildings  or  camps,  at  or  adjacent  to  any 
military  post  or  town.  They  will  not  be  subsisted  in  idleness,  or  in  any 
way  except  as  employes  of  the  government,  or  in  cases  of  extreme  destitu 
tion  or  sickness  ;  and  in  such  cases  the  officer  authorized  to  order  the  issues 
shall  be  the  judge  as  to  the  justice  of  the  claim  for  such  subsistence."  This 
was  done  in  order  to  encourage  a  disposition  to  work  among  the  enfran 
chised  class.  Beside  this  object,  the  interest  of  the  commonwealth  impera 
tively  demanded  it,  in  order  that  the  growing  crop  might  be  secured.  No 
person,  white  or  black,  who  was  able  to  labor,  was  to  be  subsisted  by 
the  government  in  idleness.  The  provost-marshals  and  their  assistants 
throughout  the  district  were  charged  to  use  every  means  in  their  power  to 
carry  out  these  instructions  in  their  letter  and  spirit.  Yet,  in  spite  of  these 
rigorous  military  measures,  the  freedmen  could  not  be  kept  in  the  fields.  It 
is  estimated  that  in  Texas  alone,  where  there  was  a  fine  crop,  there  was  a 
loss  of  forty  thousand  bales  of  cotton,  simply  for  the  want  of  laborers  to  pick 
it  out.  This  waste  occurred  at  a  time  when  cotton  was  worth  sixty  cents  a 
pound. 

The  convention  called  by  Governor  Hamilton  met  on  the  loth  of  Febru 
ary,  1866.  It  adopted  an  ordinance  repealing  the  secession  ordinance,  and 
declaring  it  null  and  void.  The  state  debt  incurred  in  aid  of  the  rebellion, 
and  all  responsibility  for  the  Confederate  States  debts,  were  repudiated. 

The  eighth  article  of  the  constitution  of  Texas,  adopted  in  1845,  pro 
hibited  emancipation  without  the  consent  of  the  owners.  It  required  com 
pensation  to  be  made  to  them.  It  denied  to  the  legislature  the  right  to  pass 


REORGANIZATION  IN  TEXAS.  401 

laws  prohibiting  the  importation  of  slaves  from  the  other  states  of  the  Ameri 
can  Union.  The  convention  of  February,  1866,  threw  out  this  provision  and 
substituted  an  ordinance  declaring  : — that  African  slavery,  as  it  had  heretofore 
existed,  having  been  terminated  within  the  state  by  the  government  of  the 
United  States  by  force  of  arms,  and  its  re-establishment  being  prohibited  by 
the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  therefore,  neither 
slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime  whereof 
the  party  should  have  been  duly  convicted,  should  exist  in  the  state.  It  also  de 
clared  that  Africans  and  their  descendants  should  be  protected  in  their  rights 
of  person  and  property  by  appropriate  legislation  ;  they  should  have  the  right 
to  contract  and  be  contracted  with  ;  to  sue  and  be  sued  ;  to  acquire,  hold, 
and  transmit  property  ;  and  all  criminal  prosecutions  against  them  should  be 
conducted  in  the  same  manner  as  prosecutions  for  like  offenses  against  the 
white  race,  and  they  should  be  subject  to  like  penalties.  Neither  Africans 
nor  their  descendants  should  be  prohibited,  on  account  of  their  color  or  race, 
from  testifying  orally  as  witnesses,  in  any  case,  civil  or  criminal,  involving  the 
right  of,  or  injury  to,  or  crime  against  any  of  them  in  person  or  property. 
They  were  to  have  the  same  rules  of  evidence  that  were  applicable  to  the 
white  race.  The  credibility  of  their  testimony  was  to  be  determined  by  the 
court  or  jury  hearing  the  same  ;  and  the  legislature  was  given  power  to  au 
thorize  them  to  testify  as  witnesses  in  all  other  cases,  under  such  regulations 
as  might  be  prescribed,  as  to  facts  thereafter  occurring.  An  act  was 
passed  by  the  same  legislature  regulating  the  relations  of  master  and 
apprentice.  It  made  no  discrimination  on  account  of  race  or  color. 
Minors,  with  or  without  the  consent  of  parents,  were  to  be  bound  out  if 
found  wandering  about  without  a  regular  home  or  employment.  A  lien 
on  crops  was  also  given  to  creditors  who  advanced  the  means  of  produc 
ing  them.  All  contracts  for  labor  exceeding  one  month  in  duration  were 
required  to  be  in  writing,  and  witnessed  by  a  justice  of  the  peace  or  notary 
public.  A  stay  law  was  passed  extending  the  time  for  issuing  execution  for 
one,  two,  three,  and  four  years,  on  the  first,  second,  third,  and  fourth  quar 
ters  of  the  debt. 

More  than  one-third  of  the  members  of  the  convention  were  in  favor  of  a 
system  based  on  a  broader  foundation  than  that  of  the  white  race  exclusively, 
but  they  were  voted  down,  by  a  vote  of  47  to  26.  Several  members  were  in 
favor  of  giving  qualified  suffrage  to  negroes  who  could  read  and  write. 

State  officers  were  elected  under  the  new  constitution  on  June  4th,  follow 
ing,  and  the  constitution  was  ratified  on  the  same  day.  The  vote  was  small, 
only  48,519,  of  which  there  was  a  majority  of  7,719  in  favor  of  ratifica 
tion.  The  total  vote  for  governor  was  60,682,  of  which  Mr.  Throckmorton, 
the  "Conservative  Union"  candidate  received  48,631,  and  the  Republican, 
Mr.  Pease,  received  12,051.  In  the  legislature  elected  at  the  same  time,  the 
Republicans  had  two  of  the  thirty-three  members  in  the  senate,  and  in  the 


402  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

house  of  representatives,  five  of  the  ninety  members.  The  provisional  gov 
ernor  and  his  officers  were  then  instructed  by  the  President  to  turn  over  the 
control  of  affairs  to  the  officials  chosen  by  the  people.  The  new  administra 
tion  was  immediately  inaugurated,  and  the  instruction  was  complied  with. 

During  the  session  of  the  convention  a  resolution  was  reported  in  regard 
to  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  by 
a  committee  appointed  to  consider  the  proposal,  for  its  ratification.  The 
report  was  to  the  effect  that,  "  The  people  of  Texas,  in  convention 
assembled,  have  already  by  their  ordinance  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  which  Constitution  the  above  named 
article  thirteen  is  embraced  as  part  of  the  same ;  the  courts  of  law  so  hold 
and  administer.  The  legislature  has  no  authority  in  this  matter  ;  any  action 
on  the  same  would  be  surplusage,  if  not  intrusive.  The  committee,  there 
fore,  ask  to  be  excused  from  the  further  consideration  of  the  same ;  and  they 
therewith  respectfully  return  the  communication  of  the  Honorable  the  Sec 
retary  of  the  United  States."  This  was  a  plausible  avoidance  of  a  disagreeable 
duty.  The  legislature  of  a  state  has  certainly  authority  to  act  on  the  ratifi 
cation  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  idea 
was  shrewdly  thrown  out  that  such  action  would  be  u  surplusage,  if  not  in 
trusive,"  on  the  ground  that  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  might  be  consid 
ered  ratified  when  the  convention,  the  year  previous,  repealed  the  secession 
ordinance,  and  repledged  the  faith  of  the  state  to  the  Union.  This  did  not 
satisfy  Congress,  hence  military  supervision  remained. 

The  wretched  condition  of  the  people  of  Alabama  at  the  close  of  the  war 
was  described  by  Lewis  E.  Parsons,  the  provisional  governor,  in  a  lecture  de 
livered  in  New- York,  in  the  year  1865.  He  said  that  while  public  attention 
in  the  North  was  turned  mainly  to  the  operations  around  Richmond,  and  to 
those  which  attended  the  movements  of  the  vast  armies  of  General  Sherman, 
it  also  happened  that  Gen.  James  H.  Wilson,  of  Illinois,  with  a  large  force 
of  cavalry,  some  seventeen  thousand,  commenced  a  movement  from  the  Ten 
nessee  River,  and  a  point  in  the  northwest  of  the  State  of  Alabama,  diag 
onally  across  the  state.  His  troops  penetrated  to  the  centre  and  then  radiated 
from  Selma  in  every  direction,  through  one  of  the  most  productive  regions 
of  the  South. 

That  little  city  of  Selma  had  about  ten  thousand  inhabitants.  Its  defenses 
were  carried  by  assault  on  one  of  the  first  Sunday  evenings  in  April,  the  sun 
being  about  an  hour  high.  Before  another  sun  rose,  every  house  in  the  city 
was  sacked,  except  two.  Every  woman  was  robbed  of  her  watch,  her  ear 
rings,  her  finger-rings,  her  jewelry  of  all  descriptions ;  and  the  whole  city 
was  given  up,  for  the  time,  to  the  possession  of  the  soldiers.  It  was  a  severe 
discipline  to  the  people.  It  was  thought  necessary  by  the  commanding  gen 
eral,  to  subdue  the  spirit  of  rebellion.  For  one  week  the  forces  under  Gen- 


REORGANIZATION  IN  ALABAMA.  403 

eral  Wilson  occupied  the  little  town.  Night  after  night  and  day  after  day, 
one  public  building  after  another,  the  arsenal  and  then  the  foundry,  each  of 
which  covered  eight  or  nine  acres  of  ground  and  was  conducted  upon  a  scale 
commensurate  with  the  demand  for  military  supplies  that  the  war  created, 
the  railroad  depots  and  machine-shops  connected  with  them,  and  everything 
of  that  description  which  had  been  in  any  degree  subservient  to  the  cause  of 
the  rebellion  were  laid  in  ashes.  Of  the  brick  stores  in  the  city,  more  than 
sixty  in  number,  forty-nine  were  consumed. 

"  Indeed,"  said  Governor  Parsons,  "  after  three  weeks  had  elapsed,  it  was 
with  difficulty  you  could  travel  the  road  from  Plantersville  to  that  city,  so  of 
fensive  was  the  atmosphere,  in  consequence  of  decaying  horses  and  mules  that 
lay  along  the  road-side.  Every  description  of  ruin,  except  the  interred  dead  of 
the  human  family,  met  the  eye.  I  witnessed  it  myself.  The  fact  is,  that  no 
description  can  equal  the  reality.  When  the  Federal  forces  left  the  little  town, 
which  is  built  on  a  bluff  on  the  Alabama  River,  they  crossed  at  night  on  a 
pontoon  bridge,  and  their  way  was  lighted  by  burning  warehouses  standing 
on  the  shore." 

Nothing  can  be  said  in  extenuation  of  this  brutal  vandalism,  which  was 
ten-fold  in  degree  worse  than  the  burning  of  the  public  buildings  and  half  a 
dozen  private  houses  in  Washington  by  Ross  and  Cockburn,  in  1814  ;  a  deed 
which  tarnished  the  honor  of  the  British  army  and  navy. 

On  June  21,  1865,  President  Johnson  appointed  the  gentleman  who 
gave  this  account,  Lewis  E.  Parsons,  provisional  governor  of  Alabama. 
On  the  2Oth  of  July  following,  the  governor,  by  proclamation,  ordered  an 
election  for  a  state  convention,  to  revise  the  constitution.  In  his  proclama 
tion  he  told  some  unwelcome  truths  to  the  people.  He  informed  them  that 
of  the  122,000  soldiers  whom  Alabama  had  sent  to  the  field  to  fight  for  seces 
sion,  35,000  would  never  return ;  and  that  probably  as  many  more  would 
return  permanently  injured  by  wounds  or  disease.  A  large  proportion  of  the 
material  wealth  of  the  state  had  been  exhausted.  Fields  had  been  laid  waste. 
Towns  and  cities,  railroads,  bridges,  schools  and  colleges,  and  many  private 
dwellings  were  in  ruins.  Untold  sufferings  had  been,  and  were  still  to  be 
endured  by  the  women  and  children.  "  There  is  no  longer  a  slave,"  he  said, 
"  in  Alabama.  It  is  thus  made  manifest  to  the  world  that  the  right  of  seces 
sion  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  separate  confederacy,  based  on  the  idea 
of  African  slavery,  has  been  fully  and  effectually  tried,  and  is  a  failure." 
He  assured  them,  however,  that  amid  all  the  ruin,  suffering,  and  death  that 
had  resulted  from  the  attempt  at  secession,  "  every  political  right  which  the 
state  possessed  under  the  Federal  Constitution  is  hers  to-day,  with  the  single 
exception  relating  to  slavery."  But  this  assurance  was  like  hope  that  is 
deferred. 

Governor  Parsons  recognized  the  magistrates,  and  other  county  and 
municipal  officers  who  were  in  office,  May  22d.  He  authorized  them  to  ex- 


404  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ercise  their  functions  during  the  continuance  of  the  provisional  government, — 
the  sheriffs  and  probate  judges  were  to  act  temporarily  until  new  appoint 
ments  could  be  made.  All  these  officers  were  required  to  take  and  subscribe 
the  amnesty  oath  prescribed  by  President  Johnson.  They  were  liable  to  re 
moval  if  found  to  be  disloyal.  The  election  for  delegates  to  the  convention 
was  held  August  3ist.  The  same  restrictions  and  qualifications  for  voters 
and  members  of  the  convention  were  prescribed  as  in  the  case  of  North  Caro 
lina.  The  civil  and  criminal  laws,  as  they  existed  on  Jan.  n,  1861,  except 
that  portion  of  them  which  related  to  slaves,  were  declared  to  be  in  full 
force.  There  was  a  general  co-operation  of  the  people  in  the  reconstruction 
measures  of  the  governor.  The  election  was  conducted  quietly ;  the  vote 
was  respectably  large.  The  convention  assembled  on  September  loth.  Ex- 
Gov.  Benjamin  Fitzpatrick  was  unanimously  elected  president,  and  William 
H.  Ogbourne,  Secretary.  A  committee  was  appointed  consisting  of  one 
member  from  each  judicial  district,  to  report  necessary  amendments  to  the 
state  constitution.  Another  committee  was  appointed  to  report  relative  to 
the  repeal  of  the  secession  ordinance,  and  also  to  inquire  into  the  practica 
bility  of  legalizing  certain  acts  of  the  legislature  adopted  during  the  war.  On 
the  1 9th,  an  election  for  governor,  legislature,  county  and  municipal 
officers,  and  Representatives  in  Congress  was  ordered  to  take  place  on  the 
first  Monday  in  November.  The  legislature  met  on  the  third  Monday  of  the 
same  month.  It  disapproved  of  the  action  of  the  convention  authorizing  an 
election  for  members  of  Congress ;  hence  it  passed  a  resolution  requesting 
the  governor  to  issue  writs  of  election.  This  made  no  difference,  as  the 
Representatives  elected  were  not  admitted. 

The  ordinance  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  reported  by  the  majority  of  the 
committee,  was  as  follows  : 

First.  "That  as  the  institution  of  slavery  has  been  destroyed  in  the 
State  of  Alabama,  hereafter  there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  in  this  state,  otherwise  than  for  the  punishment  of  crime,  whereof 
the  party  shall  be  duly  convicted." 

Second.  "  That  the  constitution  be  amended  by  striking  out  all  pro 
visions  in  relation  to  slaves  and  slavery." 

Third.  "  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature,  at  its  next  ses 
sion,  to  pass  such  laws  as  will  protect  the  freedmen  of  this  state  in  the  en 
joyment  of  all  their  rights  of  person  and  property." 

This  ordinance  was  passed,  by  a  vote  of  eighty-nine  to  three.  But  before 
it  was  adopted,  a  substitute  was  offered  by  the  minority  of  the  committee. 
The  substitute  failed.  Its  object  was  to  send  matters  to  the  supreme  court. 
Debate  ensued.  The  old  questions  were  re-stated  ;  for  instance  :  The  state 
had  committed  no  crime  by  secession.  Only  individuals  could  be  punished. 
Secession  worked  no  forfeiture  of  rights  of  property  in  slaves  or  otherwise. 
The  proclamation  nullified  the  state  constitution.  This  involved  the  loss  of 


REORGANIZATION  IN  ALABAMA.  405 

a  republican  form  of  government,  and  of  local  sovereignty.  No  reclamations 
for  the  value  of  lost  slaves  would  be  possible,  if  the  ordinance  should  pass. 
The  other  side  replied,  —  that  the  war  had  settled  secession  and  slavery. 
From  the  sword  there  was  no  appeal.  The  Supreme  Court  decisions  were 
not  always  respected.  The  United  States  Bank  and  the  Dred  Scott  cases 
were  instanced.  Slavery  could  not  be  restored,  even  if  force  were  with 
drawn.  The  South  was  exhausted.  It  would  be  St.  Domingo  over  again. 
The  Assembly  of  France  had  abolished  slavery  in  that  island.  No  insurrec 
tion  followed.  Afterward  the  Assembly  repealed  the  law.  The  planters 
attempted  to  subject  the  negro  to  slavery.  Thereupon  insurrection  broke 
out.  Such  would  be  the  case  in  Alabama.  After  scenes  of  horror  and 
carnage,  one  race  or  the  other  would  be  exterminated,  and  Alabama  would 
become  a  desert. 

The  objection  was  raised  that  there  was  no  power  in  the  United  States 
Government,  by  proclamation  of  the  President  or  otherwise,  to  destroy 
slavery.  This  was  a  very  unreasonable  claim  for  a  higher  and  more  sacred 
title  in  slaves  than  appertained  to  any  other  species  of  property.  Under 
such  sentiment  and  influence,  the  convention,  on  the  22d  of  September, 
adopted  the  ordinance.  It  ratified  certain  laws  of  the  state  passed  since 
the  eleventh  day  of  January,  1861.  It  excepted,  however,  all  such  laws  as 
authorized  the  issue  of  bonds,  treasury  notes,  and  change  bills  by  the  state  ; 
and  all  laws  which  authorized  the  payment  in  Confederate  money  or  bonds, 
of  debts  due  to  the  state,  for  moneys  loaned  to  individuals  or  corporations, 
and  the  payment  of  dues  and  taxes  to  the  state  in  Confederate  bonds  and  state 
treasury  notes,  and  all  laws  in  relation  to  taxation.  It  ignored  the  time  between 
the  eleventh  day  of  January,  1861,  and  the  passage  of  that  ordinance,  in  com 
puting  the  bar  of  the  statute  of  limitations.  The  convention  refused  to  except 
from  ratification  the  laws  passed  by  the  legislature  during  the  Confederacy, 
which  authorized  executors,  guardians,  and  trustees  to  sell  property  and  re 
ceive  in  payment  Confederate  and  other  currency  issued  during  the  war ; 
also,  the  laws  which  authorized  investment  by  persons  acting  in  a  fiduciary 
capacity,  in  Confederate  or  state  bonds.  There  was  good  reason  for  this 
decision,  since  the  parties  affected  had  acted  in  good  faith.  They  obeyed  the 
de  facto  law  under  which  they  lived.  To  hold  them  responsible  for  the  fail 
ure  of  the  insurgency  and  the  collapse  of  its  finances,  would  have  been  unjust. 
But  the  convention  very  properly  refused  to  ratify  a  transaction  by  which  a 
debt  to  the  state  amounting  to  $225,000,  contracted  before  the  war  and  not 
payable  until  after  its  close,  was  paid  in  1864  in  depreciated  Confederate 
notes.  The  injustice  of  that  transaction  appears  from  the  financial  quota 
tions  of  the  value  of  Confederate  notes,  as  compared  with  gold.  In  1861, 
the  premium  on  the  latter  was  from  five  to  thirty  per  centum.  By  the  end  of 

1862,  three  dollars  in  notes  were  received  for  one  in  gold;  in  December, 

1863,  twenty-one   for  one ;  in  December,   1864,  fifty-one  for  one ;  and   on 


406  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

April  n,  1865,  seventy  for  one.  From  the  latter  date,  quotations  advanced 
to  one,  two,  three,  five,  eight,  ten,  and  twelve  hundred  for  one,  on  May  I, 
1865,  the  last  quotation. 

An  ordinance  declaring  the  secession  ordinance  null  and  void  was  also 
adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote.  The  minority  of  the  committee  in  vain  pro 
posed  to  declare  instead  that  the  secession  ordinance  "  was  unauthorized  and 
void."  This  proposition  was  voted  down.  The  delegates  hastened  toward 
reconstruction.  They  passed  an  ordinance  authorizing  the  provisional  gov 
ernor  to  act  until  a  successor  should  be  elected.  Another  ordinance  was 
passed,  which  ordained  that  all  debts  created  by  the  State  of  Alabama  in  aid 
of  the  late  war  should  be  void,  and  that  the  general  assembly  should  have 
no  authority  to  assume,  or  make  any  provision  for  the  payment  of  any  portion 
of  the  Confederate  debt.  The  convention  passed  ordinances  removing  cer 
tain  disabilities  from  the  colored  race.  It  legalized  the  voluntary  unions  that 
had  existed  between  the  sexes.  It  required  for  future  marriages,  a  license 
according  to  the  laws  for  white  people.  Private  contracts  made  during  the 
war,  and  decrees  of  courts  relating  thereto,  were  ratified.  Parol  proof  was 
allowed,  as  to  the  real  value  of  the  current  money  at  the  time,  and  in  the 
settlement  of  accounts  of  executors  and  administrators. 

The  convention  adjourned  September  30,  without  submitting  their  revi 
sion  of  the  constitution  and  laws  to  the  people  for  ratification.  This  was  done 
to  avoid  the  delay  that  its  submission  would  have  caused.  The  registered  vote 
amounted  to  65,825.  The  election  for  governor  resulted  in  the  choice  of 
Robert  M.  Patton.  He  received  21,422  votes,  against  15,234  for  M.  J. 
Bulger,  and  8,194  for  William  R.  Smith,  an  ex-member  of  Congress.  Mr. 
Smith  represented  the  more  decided  Union  sentiment.  The  total  vote  cast 
was  only  44,850.  It  was  only  a  fraction  above  half  the  vote  cast  in  the 
state  at  the  Presidential  election  in  1860,  which  amounted  to  89,572.  The 
vote  received  by  Mr.  Patton  was  only  a  plurality  of  the  vote  cast,  and  was 
less  than  one-fourth  of  the  whole  popular  vote  in  1860.  A  legislature  was 
also  elected.  It  met  November  2Oth.  The  provisional  governor  sent  in  a 
message  in  relation  to  the  condition  of  the  people.  Why  a  special  recogni 
tion  of  the  governor-elect  by  the  authorities  at  Washington  was  deemed 
necessary,  while  nothing  of  the  kind  was  required  in  respect  to  the  legisla 
ture,  does  not  appear.  However  that  may  be,  Governor  Parsons  continued 
to  act  as  governor  until  he  was  formally  superseded  by  order  of  the  Presi 
dent,  in  a  dispatch  dated  December  i8th. 

The  legislature  ratified  the  amendment  to  the  United  States  Constitution 
which  forever  prohibits  the  existence  of  slavery.  An  additional  resolution 
was  adopted,  by  a  majority  of  seventy-five  to  fifteen,  which  declared  that  Con 
gress  should  not  legislate  upon  the  political  status  of  freedmen.  An  act  in 
relation  to  the  freedmen  provided  that  they  should  have  the  same  rights  in  the 
courts  and  to  the  same  extent  that  white  persons  had.  They  were  declared 


REORGANIZATION  IN  ALABAMA.  407 

competent  to  testify,  but  only  in  open  court,  and  only  in  cases  in  which  freed- 
men,  free  negroes,  and  mulattoes  were  parties,  either  plaintiff  or  defendant, 
and  in  civil  and  criminal  cases,  for  injuries  to  the  persons  and  property  of 
freedmen.  In  all  cases,  civil  and  criminal,  in  which,  under  that  act,  a  freed- 
man  might  be  a  witness  against  a  white  person,  or  a  white  person  against  a 
freedman,  the  parties  were  made  competent  witnesses,  and  neither  interest  in 
the  question  in  suit,  nor  marriage  should  disqualify  any  witness  from  testify 
ing  in  open  court.  An  act  was  passed,  authorizing  the  courts  to  bind  out 
colored  children  under  eighteen  years  of  age,  if  orphans,  or  in  cases 
where  the  parents  failed  to  provide  for  them.  An  act  regulating  con 
tracts  was  passed.  It  required  "  freedmen,  free  negroes,  and  mulattoes, 
when  contracting  to  labor  for  longer  time  than  one  month,"  to  enter  into  a 
written  agreement,  witnessed  by  two  white  persons.  Failure  to  perform  the 
contract  on  the  part  of  the  freedman  was  treated  as  a  misdemeanor  punish 
able,  on  conviction,  by  a  forfeiture  of  wages  and  sentence  for  vagrancy. 

The  governor-elect,  Mr.  Patton,  on  assuming  the  duties  of  his  office, 
delivered  an  address,  in  which  he  stated  that  the  State  of  Alabama  had  lost 
$500,000,000  by  the  war.  This  estimate,  however,  included  the  value  of  the 
slaves.  If  the  slaves  had  been  killed  or  carried  away,  the  loss  would  have 
been  apparent ;  for  in  that  case  there  would  have  been  a  real  destruction.  As 
it  was,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  emancipation  was  merely  a  transfer  of  title. 
The  governor  commended  the  policy  of  the  President.  He  claimed  that 
the  state  had  conformed  to  it.  In  regard  to  emancipation,  he  desired  it 
to  be  understood  that,  politically  and  socially,  her  local  affairs  should  be 
controlled  by  the  superior  intelligence  of  the  white  man.  These  were  not 
the  compliant  sentiments,  or  legislation,  to  gain  the  confidence  of  the  ma 
jority  in  Congress.  After  a  recess  of  some  weeks,  the  legislature  met  on 
Jan.  15,  1866.  Resolutions  wrere  adopted,  repelling  the  charges  which 
had  been  circulated  that  the  people  were  insincere  in  their  professions  of 
allegiance.  The  legislature  pledged  their  cordial  support  to  President  John 
son's  policy.  They  passed  acts  of  a  local  and  general  character,  among 
them  a  "stay  law,"  to  stop  executions  under  suits  brought  since  May  i, 
1865,  as  well  as  to  stop  the  foreclosure  of  mortgages  and  deeds  of  trust  with 
power  of  sale.  All  such  legislation  had  been  decided,  time  and  again,  by  the 
United  States  courts  to  be  unconstitutional ;  but  the  states,  North  as  well  as 
South,  had  resorted  to  them  in  periods  of  pecuniary  distress.  A  new  penal 
code  was  adopted,  making  no  distinction  on  account  of  color.  The  whip 
ping-post  and  branding-iron  were  abolished.  Imprisonment  with  hard 
labor  was  substituted. 

The  legislature  declined  to  ratify  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Consti 
tution.  They  laid  the  matter  over.  The  governor,  in  his  message,  had  op 
posed  the  ratification  ;  but  at  the  next  session  he  declared  that  although  his 
opinions  were  not  changed,  it  would  be  politic  to  adopt  the  amendment.  Its 


408  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

rejection  would  provoke  the  majority  of  Congress.  Measures  still  more  radi 
cal  would  follow.  His  fears  were  prophetic.  The  governor's  advice  was 
unheeded.  The  legislature  refused  by  a  large  majority  to  ratify  the  amend 
ment.  The  governor  opposed  the  policy  of  re-enslaving  the  negroes  under 
laws  regulating  labor  contracts  and  the  means  of  collection.  He  vetoed  one 
bill  of  this  character,  but  another  was  enacted.  In  his  message  of  Novem 
ber,  1866,  he  said  as  to  such  contracts,  that  there  had  been  instances  of  bad 
faith.  They  were  suggestive  of  the  necessity  of  a  legal  remedy.  Where 
employers  of  freedmen  had,  by  captious  unreasonableness,  sought,  and  even 
created  pretexts  for  finding  fault  with  their  employes,  and  discharging  them 
without  pay,  alleging  a  violation  of  contract,  he  pointed  out  that  the  only 
remedy  left  the  freedman  was  a  suit  for  his  wages.  This  remedy  was  so  tardy 
as  to  be  scarcely  worth  pursuing.  For  such  injustice  as  this,  a  remedy  should 
be  provided.  It  should  be  furnished  by  a  law  which  would  authorize  a  sum 
mary  mode  of  enforcing  payment  for  labor  of  the  character  under  consid 
eration.  It  was  such  acts  of  injustice  that  gave  existence  and  tenure  to  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau,  and  caused  continued  denial  of  home  rule  to  Alabama 
and  other  states. 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  America  is  a  union  of  dioceses,  simi 
lar  to  the  union  of  the  states.  Hence,  when  secession  took  place,  and  the 
Southern  States  went  to  war  upon  the  Union,  the  effect  was  to  separate  the 
Southern  dioceses  from  those  of  the  North,  with  which  they  were  affiliated 
on  something  like  the  plan  of  the  Congregational  societies.  In  conse 
quence  of  the  separation  the  Prayer-Book  was  revised  in  the  South.  Prayers 
for  "the  President  of  the  Confederate  States  "  were  substituted  for  prayers  for 
the  President  of  the  United  States.  But  after  the  Confederacy  collapsed, 
there  was  a  new  revision.  Although  the  latter  revision  was  a  necessity,  there 
was  doubtless  a  degree  of  reluctance  in  making  the  change.  Some  of  the 
bishops  and  clergy  were  imbued  with  strong  Southern  sentiments.  They 
were  not  disposed  to  anticipate  the  formal  work  of  revision.  It  was  in 
this  mood  that  Bishop  Wilmer,  of  Alabama,  instructed  the  clergy  of  his 
diocese  to  omit  the  usual  prayer  for  the  President,  and  all  others  in  authority . 
In  this  state  of  things  Gen.  Charles  A.  Woods  issued  an  order,  "pur 
suant  to  the  directions  of  Major-General  Thomas,  commanding  the  mili 
tary  district  of  Tennessee,"  that  the  bishop  and  the  clergy  of  his  diocese 
should  be  suspended  from  their  functions  and  forbidden  to  preach  or  perform 
divine  service  !  Then  came  a  discussion. 

The  bishop  assigned  as  a  reason  for  his  course,  that  his  church  estab 
lished  a  form  with  reference  to  the  subject  of  prayer  for  all  in  civil 
authority.  "  No  one,"  he  said,  "could  be  expected  to  desire  a  long  con 
tinuance  of  military  rule,  therefore  the  prayer  suggested  was  inappropriate 
to  a  condition  of  things,  when  no  civil  authority  existed.  Hence,"  as  he 
said,  "  we  may  yield  a  true  allegiance  to,  and  sincerely  pray  for  grace,  wis- 


REORGANIZATION  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  409 

dom,  and  understanding,  in  behalf  of  a  government  founded  on  rorce,  while 
at  the  same  time  we  could  not,  in  good  conscience,  ask  for  its  continuance 
and  prosperity." 

General  Woods  replied  that  there  were  a  President  and  civil  officers  in  ex 
istence  at  the  time  of  the  recommendation  to  the  clergy,  and  that  since  then  a 
civil  government  had  been  re-established  in  Alabama,  but  that  the  prayer 
had  not  been  restored.  It  was  further  shown  that  the  prayer  was  not  a 
prayer  for  the  continuance  of  military  rule,  but  simply  for  the  temporal  and 
spiritual  weal  of  the  persons  in  whose  behalf  it  was  offered.  .What  can 
be  thought  of  this  reasoning,  in  view  of  the  doctrine  of  Roger  Williams, 
Lord  Baltimore,  and  the  Federal  Constitution?  The  General  continued: 
"  The  advice  of  the  bishop  to  omit  this  prayer,  and  its  omission  by  the 
clergy,  is  not  a  violation  of  the  canons  of  the  church,  but  it  shows  a  factious 
aad  disloyal  spirit,  and  is  a  marked  insult  to  every  loyal  citizen  within  the 
department.  Such  men  are  unsafe  public  teachers,  and  not  to  be  trusted  in 
places  of  power  and  influence  over  public  opinion." 

This  meddlesome  order  illustrates  the  danger  of  intrusting  despotic 
power  to  any  man  dressed  in  authority.  It  was  a  law  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  to  offer  up  prayers  for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  all 
others  in  authority ;  but  where  is  the  warrant  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  to  its  officers,  civil  or  military,  to  require  the  Episcopal,  or 
any  clergy  to  observe  their  own  church  canons?  No  other  Protestant 
denomination  has  such  a  canon,  whatever  maybe  the  custom.  How  then 
could  the  Protestant  Episcopal  clergy  be  required  to  do  that  which  is  not 
required,  nor  done  perhaps,  by  Methodists,  Baptists,  and  Presbyterians? 
Moreover,  to  compel  men,  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  to  repeat  prayers  for 
persons  and  authorities  whom  they  detest,  is  a  mockery  of  religion,  only 
next  to  the  test  oath  itself.  President  Johnson  very  properly  and  promptly 
expunged  this  audacious  and  foolish  order.  Over  its  abrogation  the  best  of 
men  rejoiced. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  war  South  Carolina  had  a  larger  colored 
population  than  any  state  in  the  Union.  The  ratio  of  the  colored  to  white 
inhabitants  was  almost  as  two  to  one.  Predominance  of  the  African  race 
constituted  her  weakest  spot  in  a  military  point  of  view.  True,  her  people 
were  brave  and  high-spirited,  having  been  trained  for  generations  to  the  use 
of  arms,  and  always  having  stood  ready  to  defend  their  firesides  and  main 
tain  dominion  over  their  bondmen.  Against  a  foreign  enemy,  however,  who 
would  assail  her  on  her  weak  side  by  appeals  to  her  slaves  with  offers  of 
liberty,  South  Carolina  would  have  been  able  to  offer  but  a  feeble  resistance. 

The  real  strength  of  the  Palmetto  State  in  the  South,  and  in  the  Union, 
lay  in  the  talent  and  aggressive  spirit  of  her  educated  clarss.  In  every 
period  of  her  history,  they  were  wont  to  take  a  leading  part  in  public 


410  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

affairs.  They  asserted  the  claims  of  slavery  to  the  protection  of  the  general 
government.  It  was  this  daring  spirit  of  reliance,  not  on  her  o\rn 
sinews  of  war,  but  on  those  of  the  whole  South, — which  she  confidently  ex 
pected  to  rally  to  her  support, —  that  emboldened  her,  in  1832,  to  declare  the 
Tariff  act  of  1828  "  null  and  void."  It  was  the  same  reliance  which 
prompted  her  to  take  the  lead  in  the  work  of  secession  in  1860.  The 
writer  recalls  an  amusing  incident  before  the  war,  in  relation  to  the  self- 
assertion  of  South  Carolina.  It  happened  in  1855,  at  the  hospitable  board 
of  Col.  John  W.  Forney,  in  Washington.  The  writer  was  on  his  first 
visit  to  the  Federal  city.  He  received  an  invitation  to  meet  several  nota 
ble  men  at  the  Colonel's  house.  Among  them  were  John  C.  Brecken- 
ridge,  Judge  Douglas,  Senator  Jesse  D.  Bright,  Henry  M.  Phillips,  of 
Philadelphia,  Lawrence  M.  Keitt,  of  South  Carolina,  John  Slidell,  and 
other  guests.  Much  badinage  was  indulged  in  by  Colonel  Keitt  toward 
Kentucky.  It  was  aimed  at  Major  Breckenridge,  who  was  in  his  hap 
piest  mood,  and  received  it  with  abundant  drollery.  Finally,  he  was 
aroused  by  a  remark  about  Kentucky  braggadocio.  The  Kentuckian 
rallied,  and  such  raillery  never  before  rolled  from  a  humorous  tongue 
and  hilarious  heart.  He  related  his  recent  experience  in  coming  from 
New  Orleans  to  Washington  by  the  way  of  South  Carolina.  "  Would 
you  believe  it,"  said  he,  "  there  was  but  one  man  who  boarded  the  cars  on 
the  route  through  that  unpopulous  piney -wooded  land  of  poor  soil.  He  was 
dressed  in  full  regimentals,  and  entered  the  smoking-car  with  the  mien  of  a 
Cambyses  or  Murat.  Being  wearied  with  gazing  out  of  the  car  windows 
on  the  monotonous  landscape,  here  and  there  varied  with  a  few  seedy  negroes, 
and  flecked  with  a  starved  sheep,  or  a  spavined  horse  or  miserable  cow,  I 
joined  this  splendid  soldier  in  the  smoking-car.  I  offered  him  a  fresh  cigar 
to  engage  him  in  conversation,  and  began  to  question  him.  He  had  on  a 
cocked  hat,  with  three  ostrich  plumes  in  it  dyed  a  golden  hue.  His 
epaulettes  were  as  goldenly  superb  as  his  sash  and  sword.  His  martial  mien 
of  defiance  would  have  humiliated  Job's  proudest  war-horse  snuffing  the  battle 
from  afar.  It  was  in  keeping  with  his  grandiose  style  and  superb  toilette. 
'  May  I  ask,'  said  I,  meekly,  '  what  is  going  on  in  this  state?'  Tossing  his 
head  in  proud  disdain,  he  replied  :  '  Going  on,  sir?  We  won't  stand  it  no 
mo',  sir!  The  governor  has  sent  for  his  staff  to  meet  him  and  consult 
about  it  in  Columbia,  sir !  I  am  one  of  his  staff,  sir !  We  won't  stand  it 
any  longer,  sir  !  No,  sir!  It  is  intolerable,  sir  !  No,  sir  !'  'Stand  what?' 
I  asked,  in  surprise,  not  unmixed  with  dread,  —  for  I  had  been  away  South 
caring  for  my  sick  wife,  — '  Stand  what?  What  is  going  on?'  He  disdain 
fully  answered :  '  Stand  the  encroachments  on  our  Southern  institu 
tions,  sir !  The  abolitionists  must  be  crushed,  sir !  We  will  do  it,  sir ! 
South  Carolina  is  ready,  sir ! '  I  told  him  quietly,"  said  the  gallant 
Kentuckian,  ''that  there  was  a  custom  in  the  Indian  Office  at  Wash- 


REORGANIZATION  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  411 

ington,  to  tote  at  the  public  cost,  a  band  of  big  Indian  chiefs  over  the  North 
and  its  marvelous  cities  ;  so  that  they  would  not  go  to  war,  when  they  saw 
what  a  big  country  they  would  have  to  whip  !  "  The  hilarities  of  the  table 
responded  to  the  jocund  chaffing,  and  all  agreed  that  the  South  Carolina 
governor's  staff  might  be  traveled  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States  with 
some  advantage  to  their  section.  None  more  heartily  enjoyed  the  story 
than  Colonel  Keitt  himself.  What  an  experience  Mr.  Breckenridge  had, — 
from  Vice-President  of  the  United  States  to  major-general  in  the  Confed 
eracy  !  The  writer  met  him  after  the  war,  as  mentioned  in  the  fourth 
chapter.  Quantum  mutatus  ab  illo  !  How  changed,  alas  !  from  that  happy 
-evening  when  his  amiable  badinage  about  sectional  and  state  pride  set  the 
table  in  a  roar  at  South  Carolina's  chivalry. 

Alas !  how  much  the  proud  and  gallant  little  state  has  suffered  for  her 
frowardness.  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  gave  pathos  to  the  saddest  lyric  of  the 
war,  when  he  sang  of  our  petulant  sister  Carolina,  as  the  child  of  the  sun  who 
had  torn  her  own  star  from  the  glow  of  our  firmament.  How  tenderly  he 
touched,  with  the  true  vaticination  of  a  poet's  vision,  upon  the  outcome  of 
that  strife  when  its  fury  should  be  ended,  and  the  fortunes  of  Carolina  at  last 
retrieved ;  and  when,  heart  aching  and  foot  sore,  she  would  remember 
the  pathway  that  led  to  the  door  of  the  Union  of  river,  of  lake,  of  ocean, 
and  sky.  It  was  cruel,  the  threat  attributed  to  General  Sherman  at  Charles 
ton, —  the  narrative  is  no  doubt  exaggerated, — when  he  menaced  this 
stormy-browed  sister  with  the  worst  punishment  of  war,  the  whip,  not  of 
cords,  but  of  scorpions,  for  her  contumacy.  Had  she  not  had  enough  in 
her  sacrifices  and  humiliations  ?  What  a  sufferer  she  was  from  the  sectional 
ravages  !  Charleston  and  Columbia,  her  chief  cities,  destroyed,  her  property 
in  flames,  her  ruling  class  ruined.  They  lost  all  for  which  they  waged  the 
war, —  slavery.  South  Carolina  had  a  larger  proportion  of  slaves  than  any 
other  state.  She  was  consequently  impoverished  in  a  greater  degree  than 
her  sister  states. 

When  the  surrender  of  Lee  and  Johnston  became  known  in  South  Caro 
lina,  the  Confederate  governor,  Magrath,  issued  an  order  to  the  civil  officers 
of  the  state,  who  had  left  Columbia  at  the  approach  of  Sherman's  army,  to 
resume  their  functions ;  but  General  Gilmore,  who  had  been  appointed  com 
mander  of  the  department,  issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  all  persons  to 
pay  attention  to  it.  In  this  proclamation,  which  applied  equally  to  Georgia 
and  Florida,  General  Gilmore  informed  the  people  that  the  negroes  were 
free,  and  that  their  rights  would  be  vindicated  by  the  United  States  Govern 
ment.  He  told  them  that  it  was  the  duty  of  citizens,  white  and  black,  to 
make  arrangements  among  themselves  for  compensated  labor  on  equitable 
terms.  Idleness  and  vagrancy  would  not  be  tolerated,  nor  would  the  gov 
ernment  extend  aid  to  any  persons,  white  or  black,  who  were  unwilling  to 
\vork~ioHhis  order  was  widely  circulated  over  the  three  states,  so  that  all  might 


412  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

have  notice  of  what  to  depend  on.  This  military  rule  remained  the  only 
government  of  South  Carolina  until  June  30,  1865,  when  President  John 
son  commissioned  Benjamin  F.  Perry  as  provisional  governor. 

Governor  Perry  proceeded  to  reorganize  civil  government  according  to 
the  plan  of  the  President.  The  powers  and  duties  of  Governor  Perry  were 
entirely  similar  to  those  laid  down  for  Governor  Holden,  which  are  fully  stated 
in  a  preceding  chapter.  The  qualifications  of  electors,  and  of  the  members 
of  the  convention  to  be  chosen,  were  the  same.  On  July  3ist,  Governor 
Perry  issued  a  proclamation,  in  which  he  temporarily  reinstated  all  civil 
officers,  except  such  as  were  under  arrest.  He  called  on  the  loyal  citizens  to 
come  forward  and  take  the  amnesty  oath,  in  order  to  qualify  themselves  as 
voters.  Judging  from  past  sentiments  this  might  be  regarded  as  a  per 
functory  duty  on  the  part  of  the  governor.  It  was  a  finger-post  to  the 
11  pathway  "  however. 

General  Gilmore  also  issued  a  proclamation  or  general  order,  in  response 
to  the  call  of  Governor  Perry,  ordering  all  persons  under  his  command  to  aid 
the  governor  in  carrying  out  the  objects  of  his  proclamation,  and  to  abstain 
from  hindering  in  any  way  the  loyal  people  in  the  organization  of  a  state 
government.  An  election  for  delegates  to  a  state  convention  was  held  on  the 
4th  of  September.  The  election  resulted  in  the  choice  of  men  who,  for 
the  most  part,  had  been  Unionists  before  the  war.  The  convention  assem 
bled  September  I3th.  By  the  second  section  of  the  ninth  article  of  the 
constitution  adopted  by  that  convention,  it  was  declared  that,  the  slaves  of 
South  Carolina  having  been  emancipated  by  the  action  of  the  United  States 
authorities,  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punish 
ment  for  crime  after  the  party  had  been  duly  convicted,  should  ever  be  re 
established  in  the  state.  An  ordinance  repealing  the  secession  ordinance 
was  offered  by  ex-Governor  Pickens  on  the  first  day  of  the  session.  It  was 
adopted  on  the  third  day  of  the  session,  by  a  vote  of  105  yeas  to  three  nays. 
An  ordinance  was  adopted  declaring  that  all  laws,  orders,  and  rules  for  ascer 
taining  the  rights  of  persons,  which  were  in  force  before  the  act  or  ordinance 
of  secession  was  passed,  and  all  such  laws,  ordinances,  and  resolutions,  except 
the  stay  law,  adopted  or  enacted  during  the  continuance  of  the  Confederacy, 
which  had  not  been  repealed  or  avoided,  remained  in  full  force,  excepting  the 
slave  code.  Also,  that  all  official  acts  of  the  executive  and  other  departments 
of  the  government,  rules  of  court,  contracts,  sales,  and  conveyances,  should 
remain  valid,  as  if  no  act  of  secession  had  been  passed.  It  was  provided, 
however,  that  where  contracts  and  obligations  made  during  the  period  named 
remained  to  be  executed,  it  would  be  competent  for  the  obligee  to  offer  testi 
mony  as  to  the  true  value  and  real  character  of  the  consideration.  The 
legislature  was  prohibited  from  imposing  civil  disabilities  or  forfeiture  upon 
citizens  for  participation  in  the  rebellion.  The  last  section  of  this  ordinance 
declared  that  all  persons  who  held  civil  offices  at  the  time  of  th  .'juir  'der  of 


REORGANIZATION  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  413 

the  Confederate  forces  were  to  be  regarded  as  still  holding  them,  on  condi 
tion  of  taking  and  subscribing  the  amnesty  oath.  This  clause  of  the  ordi 
nance  shows  the  predominant  influence  of  the  old  ruling  class.  It  was 
rendered  negative  by  the  condition  required,  as  few  of  the  high  officials  could 
run  the  gauntlet  of  the  fourteen  excepted  classes  of  President  Johnson's 
Amnesty  proclamation. 

It  is  evident  that  the  President's  plan  could  not  have  been  carried  out  in 
South  Carolina,  as  regarded  the  higher  officials,  without  his  co-operation 
in  granting  pardons  :  —  this  was  a  policy  which  would  have  worked  far  bet 
ter  in  North  than  in  South  Carolina.  It  was  not  resorted  to,  except  as  to 
magistrates  and  subordinate  officers.  The  governor  thought  that  emanci 
pation  would  cause  the  negroes  to  abandon  labor  to  a  considerable  extent, 
and  it  did  for  some  time.  He  advised  the  sale  of  superfluous  lands  to  immi 
grants  and  capitalists.  He  thought  it  desirable  that  members  should  be 
elected  to  Congress  immediately,  so  that  they  might  be  present  in  Washing 
ton  and  have  their  names  enrolled  by  the  clerk.  He  believed  that  this  course 
would  insure  their  reception. 

The  election  for  members  of  the  legislature,  governor,  and  lieutenant- 
governor  took  place  on  the  iSth  of  October.  James  L.  Orr,  who  had  for 
many  years  held  a  seat  in  Congress,  in  which  body  he  took  a  leading  part, 
was  chosen  governor  by  a  small  majority  over  Wade  Hampton,  who  had  dis 
tinguished  himself  as  a  general  in  the  Confederate  service.  The  total  vote 
was  only  18,885,  which,  as  representing  a  population  of  250,000  whites  and 
400,000  blacks,  must  be  regarded  as  very  light.  It  was  less  than  three  per 
centum  of  the  people.  The  legislature  met  in  extra  session  on  the  25th,  only 
seven  days  after  the  election.  The  provisional  governor  addressed  a  long 
message  to  that  body.  It  was  characterized  by  the  conservative  spirit  which 
marked  his  career  from  the  beginning.  He  claimed  to  have  been  appointed 
without  solicitation  on  his  part  or  that  of  his  friends.  After  stating  his 
reasons  for  accepting  the  appointment,  and  his  desire  to  carry  out  the  gener 
ous  views  of  the  President,  he  said :  "  Though  I  received  my  appointment 
several  months  after  other  provisional  governors  had  been  commissioned,  I 
have  the  pleasure  of  informing  you  that  South  Carolina  is  now  as  far  ad 
vanced  in  her  reconstruction  as  any  other  Southern  state.  Instead  of  wast 
ing  time  in  trying  to  fill  all  the  civil  offices  of  the  state  by  my  personal  or 
political  friends  and  partisans,  I  determined  to  restore  those  who  were  in 
office  at  the  suppression  of  the  civil  government,  and  who  had  been  elected 
by  the  people  or  appointed  by  the  legislature,  and  were  familiar  with  their 
official  duties.  I  knew  too  well  the  character  of  South  Carolina  to  doubt 
for  a  moment  that  her  sons  would  prove  loyal  and  true,  after  renewing  their 
oaths  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States.  In  this  way  I  re-established  civil 
government  at  once  in  South  Carolina,  and  greatly  expedited  her  recon 
struction." 


414  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

An  obstacle  to  the  legitimate  action  of  this  first  session  of  the  legisla 
ture  presented  itself  in  the  fact  that  the  governor-elect  under  the  constitution 
had  not  been  sworn  in.  The  approval  of  acts  by  the  provisional  gov 
ernor  would  not  be  valid,  as  he  was  not  an  executive  known  to  the  consti 
tution.  The  matter  was  referred  to  a  committee  which  reported  in  favor  of 
proceeding  with  legislation,  with  the  understanding  that  the  enactments  were 
to  await  the  signature  of  the  constitutional  governor  when  he  should  be 
sworn  in.  But  the  legislature,  regarding  this  course  as  improper,  took  a 
recess  from  the  loth  to  the  2yth  of  November.  In  the  meantime  the  ob 
struction  was  removed  by  the  recognition  of  the  governor-elect  on  the  part 
of  the  President,  and  on  the  2yth  of  November  he  was  sworn  in.  President 
Johnson  and  Secretary  Seward  sent  repeated  dispatches  to  Governor  Perry, 
urging  the  importance  of  the  ratification  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the 
United  States  Constitution.  The  governor  replied  that  the  objection  on  the 
part  of  members  of  the  legislature  was,  that  the  second  clause  might  be  con 
strued  into  an  authorization  of  congressional  legislation  with  regard  to  the 
subject.  Mr.  Seward  answered  that  the  objection  was  "  querulous  and  un 
reasonable,"  and  that  the  clause  in  question  was  "  really  restraining  in  its 
effects,  instead  of  enlarging  the  powers  of  Congress."  This  persuasive  style 
of  argument,  from  the  head  of  the  Cabinet,  had  its  intended  effect  of  inducing 
favorable  action  on  the  amendment. 

The  President  called  the  attention  of  Governor  Perry  to  the  necessity  of 
repudiating  the  debt  contracted  by  the  state  in  aid  of  the  rebellion.  To  this 
that  officer  replied  that  the  convention  had  adjourned,  and  that  the  legislature 
had  no  authority  to  repudiate  it ;  that  the  debt  thus  contracted  was  inconsid 
erable  in  amount ;  that  it  was  for  the  most  part  due  to  widows  and  orphans 
whose  estates  had  been  invested  in  it  for  safety  ;  and  that  it  was  so  blended 
with  the  legitimate  debt  as  scarcely  to  be  distinguishable.  Mr.  Seward,  in 
reply  to  the  governor,  said  that  while  the  objections  which  he  had  urged 
were  serious,  nevertheless  the  President  awaited  with  interest  the  action  of 
the  legislature  upon  the  subject.  The  tone  of  the  dispatches  from  the  Presi 
dent  and  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  provisional  governor  on  this  subject 
was  less  imperative  than  that  employed  in  regard  to  other  states.  The 
legislature  on  October  I9th  passed  an  act  preliminary  to  the  legislation  that 
Would  become  necessary  in  consequence  of  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves. 
A  commission  was  appointed  to  revise  the  laws  in  regard  to  negroes,  and 
to  adapt  them  to  the  new  order  of  things.  The  commission,  consisting  of 
two  lawyers,  made  their  report  to  the  legislature  ;  but  that  body  failed  to  act 
upon  it,  and  it  fell  to  the  ground,  with  the  whole  fabric  of  Mr.  Johnson's 
policy.  The  preliminary  act  referred  to  declared  that  all  classes  of  negroes 
save  those  having  seven-eighths  or  more  of  Caucasian  blood,  should  be  deemed 
persons  of  color ;  that  the  statutes  and  regulations  concerning  slaves  were 
then  inapplicable  to  persons  of  color  ;  and  that,  although  such  persons  were 


REORGANIZATION  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  415 

not  entitled  to  social  and  political  equality  with  white  persons,  they  should 
have  the  right  to  acquire,  own,  and  dispose  of  property,  to  make  contracts, 
to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  labor,  to  sue  and  be  sued,  and  to  receive  protec 
tion  under  the  law  in  their  persons  and  property.  It  extended  to  persons  of 
color,  subject  to  certain  modifications,  all  civil  rights  and  remedies  respecting 
persons  and  property,  and  all  duties  and  liabilities  under  laws,  civil  and  crim 
inal,  which  applied  to  white  persons. 

An  act  to  amend  the  criminal  law  was  passed  on  December  i9th.  It 
provided  that  the  crimes  specified  in  the  first  section  should  be  felonies, 
punishable  with  death.  The  law  was  made  particularly  applicable  to  per 
sons  of  color  with  respect  to  some  of  these  crimes.  These  were  willful 
homicide  by  a  person  of  color  unless  in  self-defense  ;  any  assault  by  a  person 
of  color  upon  a  white  woman,  with  manifest  intent  to  ravish  her,  and 
sexual  intercourse  by  a  person  of  color  with  a  white  woman  by  personating 
her  husband.  There  were  other  offenses  defined  in  this  category,  but 
they  seem  to  have  been  general  in  their  application.  Among  them,  to 
steal  a  horse  or  mule,  or  bale  of  cotton,  was  set  down  as  a  capital  felony. 
Among  the  offenses  also  enumerated  for  persons  of  color,  was  the  selling  by 
such  person  of  any  product  of  the  soil  without  written  authority  from  the 
master  who  employed  him.  This  act  declared  also  that  persons  of  color  con 
stituted  no  part  of  the  militia  of  the  state,  and  made  it  a  misdemeanor  for  a 
colored  person  to  have  in  possession  any  fire-arms  without  a  permit  from  a 
judge  or  magistrate.  It  prohibited  a  colored  person  owning,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  a  distillery,  or  to  be  engaged  in  distilling  spirituous  liquors.  The 
penalty  was  by  fine,  corporal  punishment,  or  hard  labor.  It  was  also  provided 
that  no  person  of  color  should  migrate  into,  or  reside  in  the  state,  unless 
within  twenty  days  after  his  arrival  he  should  enter  into  bond,  with  two  free 
holders  as  securities,  to  be  approved  by  a  judge  or  magistrate,  in  a  penalty  of 
one  thousand  dollars,  for  his  good  behavior,  and  for  his  support  if  he  should 
become  unable  to  support  himself.  Any  person  might  arrest  a  person  of 
color  for  a  misdemeanor  committed  in  his  presence,  or  for  a  misdemeanor 
committed  against  a  white  person.  Any  person  might  make  the  complaint 
to  a  magistrate,  whose  duty  it  became  to  have  the  offender  arrested.  Special 
courts  were  to  be  established,  with  exclusive  jurisdiction,  subject  to  appeal,  • 
in  cases  in  which  one  or  both  the  parties  were  persons  of  color  ;  and  persons 
of  color  were  allowed  to  be  witnesses  in  all  such  cases. 

The  intelligent  reader  need  not  be  reminded  how  inopportune,  as  well  as 
unjust,  were  these  enactments  for  the  government  of  the  freedmen.  The 
hatred  of  slavery  had  then  risen  to  fever  heat  in  all  the  Northern  states,  and 
there  was  a  rapidly  growing  sentiment  —  which  this  sort  of  legislation  fructi 
fied  —  in  favor  of  giving  unqualified  and  universal  suffrage  to  the  emancipated 
blacks.  It  was  little  short  of  madness,  therefore,  for  Southern  men  to  think 
of  substituting  a  system  of  serfdom,  in  place  of  slavery.  The  immediate 


4*6        THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

effect  of  this  new  colored  code  was  to  call  from  the  commander  of  the  district, 
Maj.-Gen.  Daniel  E.  Sickles,  a  general  order  which  completely  nullified,  or 
quashed,  the  whole  fabric  of  the  legislative  labor. 

This  general  order  consisted  of  twenty-three  sections.  It  declared,  among 
other  things,  that  all  laws  should  be  applicable  alike  to  all  inhabitants  ;  that 
no  person  should  be  held  incompetent  to  sue,  make  complaint,  or  testify, 
because  of  color  or  caste.  The  order  declared  that  the  employment  of  hus 
bandry,  or  the  useful  arts,  and  all  lawful  trades  or  callings,  might  be  followed 
by  all  persons,  irrespective  of  color  or  caste  ;  and  that  no  freedman  should  be 
obliged  to  pay  any  tax  or  any  fee  for  a  license,  or  be  amenable  to  any  muni 
cipal  or  parish  ordinance,  not  imposed  upon  all  other  persons.  The  general 
order  then  proceeded  seriatim  to  annul  the  enactments  of  the  legislature 
which  discriminated  against  colored  persons.  The  restraints  imposed  upon 
colored  men  who  desired  to  pursue  mechanical  and  other  occupations,  which 
were  not  menial  nor  agricultural,  and  the  prohibition  to  travel  from  place  to 
place  were  abolished.  Any  attempt  to  enforce  these  obnoxious  legislative 
acts  was  made  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  by  fine  and  imprisonment.  And  so 
with  all  other  legislative  discriminations  against  colored  people.  No  penalties 
or  punishments  were  to  be  inflicted  on  freedmen  different  from  those  to  which 
white  men  were  liable  ;  and  corporal  punishment  was  prohibited,  except  in 
the  case  of  minors,  and  then  only  by  parents,  guardians,  or  persons  to  whom 
the  minors  were  lawfully  bound.  Injuries  to  the  person  or  property  of  a 
freedman  were  to  be  punished  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  laws  of  South 
Carolina  for  like  injuries  to  white  persons  and  their  property. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  this  order  of  Major-General  Sickles  was 
conceived  in  a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  justice ;  and  that  in  this  regard  it 
contrasts  favorably  with  the  legislative  enactments  of  South  Carolina  which 
it  annulled  and  superseded.  This  is  not  the  first  instance  in  history  in  which 
the  will  of  one  man  invested  with  despotic  authority  has  vindicated  the 
rights  of  the  masses  against  the  tyranny  of  an  oligarchy.  —  The  Romans 
created  their  Tribunes,  and  gave  them  the  veto  on  the  Senate  with  that  ex 
press  object.  The  leaders  of  the  dominant  party  in  Congress  eagerly  took 
advantage  of  this  sort  of  legislation  to  protract  reconstruction,  in  the  further 
ance  of  their  policy  to  deny  the  Southern  States  a  republican  form  of  gov 
ernment,  until  they  should  be  transformed  into  partisan  allies. 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 


TEMPORARY  ORGANIZATIONS  OF  STATES.— CONTINUED. 

FLORIDA  DEPENDENT  ON  OTHER  STATES  — THE  CONFEDERATE  GOVERNOR, 
JOHN  MILTON  — HIS  SUCCESSOR,  GOVERNOR  WALKER— FLORIDA  ADOPTS 
THE  THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT  — LEGISLATION  AS  TO  NEGROES,  FIRE 
ARMS,  MARRIAGE,  CONTRACTS,  AND  VAGRANCY  — VIRGINIA  ATTEMPTS  TO 
RECONSTRUCT  —  GENERAL  BUTLER'S  ACTION  —  GENERAL  WEITZEL  AND 
PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  AT  RICHMOND  — PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  ORDER  — PIER- 
PONT'S  GOVERNMENT  — ATTEMPTED  REPEAL  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA  SECESSION 

—  CONGRESS   INDIFFERENT— INDORSEMENT    OF   JOHNSON'S    POLICY  —  LOUIS 
IANA-GENERAL    BUTLER    AND    THE    COLORED    PEOPLE  — HIS    VERSATILE 
AND  VALUABLE  QUALITIES  -  ATTEMPTS   TO  ORGANIZE  COURTS  —  REGISTRY, 
VOTERS,  AND    GOVERNMENT  -  GENERAL  BANKS    AND    HIS    EFFORTS— GOV 
ERNOR  HAHN  AND  HIS  PELICANS  —  GOVERNOR  WARMOUTH  AND  HIS  RADI 
CALS—ONE-TENTH    VOTING    POLICY  — PRESIDENT    JOHNSON    INTERVENES  — 
BLOODY    RIOTS    OF    1864  —  WARMOUTH    GOVERNOR— NEW   CONSTITUTION    IN 
1868  — WARMOUTH'S  LETTER  — ITS   STATEMENTS   DENIED  — OTHER  RIOTS  UN 
TIL  1868  — LOUISIANA  RECLAIMED  -  CONFISCATION  AND  RASCALITY  — WINTER 
DAVIS' BILL  —  ARKANSAS  —  HER  EARLY  MOVEMENTS  —  RADICALS  IN  CHARGE 

—  LEGISLATIVE  CRUDITIES  —  CONVENTION  OF  1866  — LABOR  QUESTIONS  —  SOL 
DIERS    AND    CIVILIANS     BOTH    TYRANNICAL  —  THE     POLAND    COMMITTEE  — 
GARLAND     SAVES     THE     STATE  — SKETCH     OF     GOVERNOR,    SENATOR,    AND 
ATTORNEY-GENERAL  GARLAND. 

FLORIDA  was  an  out-lying  state,  of  small  population  and  wealth. 
She  had  escaped  the  ravages  of  war.     No  strategic  advantage  was 
to  be  gained  by  contesting  the  possession  of  any  of  her  extensive 
territory,  except  Pensacola.     It  was  well  understood  that  her  fate 
would  follow  that  of  the  adjoining  states,  and  that  their  submission  to  the 
arms  of  the  Republic  would  compel  her  compliance. 

The  governor  was  John  Milton.  Although  not  conspicuous  for  his  en- 
ergy>  ne  was  as  representative  a  man  as  any  of  the  five  who  are  pictured  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  His  life  is  worth  a  study  in  its  relation  to  the  great 
events  of  which  it  formed  a  part.  He  served  during  the  whole  war,  as 


418  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

governor.  He  was  thoroughly  devoted  to  the  Southern  cause.  Even  in  its 
sinking  condition,  he  displayed  heroism  beyond  all  praise,  amid  distraction 
and  despondency.  He  was  born  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  April,  1807,  in 
Jefferson  County,  Georgia.  He  was  the  son  of  Col.  Homer  V.  Milton,  of 
the  United  States  Army,  and  grandson  of  the  John  Milton  for  whom,  in  our 
early  history,  Georgia  cast  her  vote  for  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States  ; 
so  that  he  had  brave,  rebellious,  and  patriotic  blood  in  his  veins.  He  was 
educated  at  the  academy  in  Louisville,  the  county  seat  of  Jefferson  County. 
He  studied  law  under  Rodger  L.  Gamble.  He  practiced  in  his  native 
county.  After  a  year  or  two  he  moved  to  Columbus,  Georgia  ;  and  while 
there  he  became  engaged  in  politics.  He  ran  for  Congress  on  the  nullifica 
tion  question.  He  was  defeated.  He  afterwards  resided  in  Mobile  and  in 
New  Orleans.  In  both  places  he  had  a  large  practice.  In  1846,  he  moved 
to  Jackson  County,  in  the  State  of  Florida.  He  settled  on  his  farm.  He 
only  appeared  in  court  occasionally.  He  was  devoted  to  agricultural  pursuits. 
His  hospitality  was  proverbial.  His  social  qualities  not  only  transmuted 
acquaintances  into  friends,  but  made  all  strangers  welcome.  His  conversa 
tion  was  of  rare  quality  and  full  of  wisdom  and  wit.  His  knowledge  of 
national  and  state  measures,  and  prominent  men,  was  immense.  He  was  a 
surprise  to  his  friends,  for,  although  he  was  not  a  hard  student,  he  seemed  to 
grasp  matters  by  intuition.  Nature  did  much  for  him.  Although  he  pre 
ferred  domestic  life,  the  people  would  not  allow  him  his  coveted  ease.  At 
every  election,  from  1846  to  1860,  his  voice  was  heard.  He  marshaled 
the  Democratic  forces.  He  was  elected  to  the  legislature  in  1849.  ^e  was 
one  of  the  Democratic  electors  in  1848,  and  visited  and  spoke  in  every  por 
tion  of  the  state.  He  became  thus  fully  known  to  the  people  of  Florida. 
They  appreciated  his  abilities  as  a  statesman  and  orator. 

The  author  met  him  first  at  the  National  Democratic  Convention,  at 
Charleston,  in  1860.  He  deplored  the  necessity  that  caused  a  division  in  the 
Democratic  party.  He  feared  that  it  would  produce  a  rupture  between  the 
states.  He  was  a  warm  supporter  of  General  Breckenridge.  In  1860,  he 
was  nominated  for  governor.  He  made  a  thorough  canvass  of  the  state, 
and  was  elected  by  a  large  majority.  He  was  inaugurated  as  governor  in 
1 86 1,  for  four  years.  After  the  withdrawal  of  the  state  from  the  United 
States,  like  a  large  portion  of  the  Southern  people  he  felt  that  the  election 
of  Abraham  Lincoln,  as  a  sectional  candidate,  was  a  sufficient  cause  for  the 
withdrawal  of  Florida.  He  favored  a  confederacy,  not  only  for  the  pro 
tection  of  states  rights,  but  to  preserve  the  rights  of  property  in  slaves. 
He  warmly  indorsed  the  action  of  his  state.  It  was  in  accord  with  his 
ideas  of  1832.  When  war  was  declared,  he  foresaw  that  the  South  had 
much  to  contend  with.  Her  success  would  be  doubtful ;  but  his  voice  and  ma 
terial  aid  were  freely  given.  He  cheerfully  and  resolutely  cast  his  fortune 
with  his  people.  Although  in  the  latter  part  of  1864  he  saw  that  the  for- 


REORGANIZATION  IN  FLORIDA.  419 

tunes  of  war  were  with  the  United  States,  and  began  to  doubt  the  wisdom  of 
secession,  he  never  varied  from  the  cherished  ideas  of  his  early  manhood.  In 
1864  and  1865,  there  were  heavy  and  repeated  calls  for  men  and  provisions 
made  upon  the  Confederate  States.  The  old  and  young  of  Florida,  through 
the  influence  of  their  governor,  had  enlisted  in  the  war,  regardless  of  age 
and  exemption.  Her  coast  was  extensive,  and  easy  of  approach.  It  re 
quired  more  men  than  she  had,  to  guard  it.  Invasion  was  threatened,  and 
in  some  points  it  was  actually  made.  Tallahassee,  the  capital,  was  an  object 
ive  point;  and  in  March,  1865,  the  troops  of  the  United  States  landed  at 
St.  Marks.  They  sought  to  hold  that  part  of  the  state,  but  were  repulsed 
at  the  Natural  Bridge,  with  loss,  and  obliged  to  re-embark.  In  the  eastern 
part  of  the  state,  similar  attempts  were  made.  These  attacks,  with  the 
knowledge  that  the  Confederacy  was  daily  growing  weaker,  caused  much 
distress  to  Governor  Milton.  He  was  approachable  by  all.  He  listened 
to  the  complaints  of  his  people.  As  a  parent  with  his  offspring,  he  sym 
pathized  in  their  sufferings.  These  anxieties,  linked  with  mental  work  and 
constant  care,  produced  softening  of  the  brain.  On  the  ist  of  April,  1865, 
he  died.  In  him  the  land  of  flowers  lost  a  devoted  friend  and  a  good 
governor.  The  requiem  over  his  grave  was  as  sincere  as  it  was  sad.  The 
president  of  the  state  senate,  Abraham  K.  Allison,  succeeded  him.  On 
April  8th,  the  day  before  the  surrender  of  the  Confederate  forces,  Mr. 
Allison  issued  a  proclamation  for  an  election  of  governor,  to  take  place  on 
June  7,  1865.  The  election  was  never  held.  The  proclamation  was  coun 
termanded  by  Major-General  Gilmore,  who  held  military  possession  until 
the  inauguration  of  Mr.  Johnson's  civil  provisional  governor. 

On  the  I3th  of  July,  1865,  the  President  appointed  William  Marvin 
provisional  governor.  An,  election  of  delegates  to  a  convention  was  ordered 
to  be  held  October  loth.  The  electors  were  to  be  of  the  same  classes  with 
those  designated  for  North  Carolina.  On  August  2d  the  governor  addressed 
a  meeting  at  Jacksonville.  In  his  speech  he  explained  the  policy  of  the 
President.  He  called  attention  to  the  necessity  of  radical  changes  in  the 
constitution  and  laws.  Referring  to  the  exceptions  made  by  the  general 
amnesty,  he  said  that  he  would  recommend  to  the  President's  consideration 
all  who  gave  evidence  of  penitence.  Abandoned  property  that  had  been 
seized  would  be  restored,  when,  after  a  hearing,  it  should  be  decided  to  par 
don  the  owner.  He  appealed  to  the  people  to  lay  aside  revengeful  feelings, 
and  to  enter  heartily  upon  the  work  of  reconstruction.  He  had  no  authority 
to  resuscitate  the  civil  authorities,  but  he  could  aid  the  people  in  doing  so. 
The  proclamation,  issued  the  next  day,  reiterated  these  sentiments.  It  stated 
specifically  the  things  necessary  to  be  done.  In  regard  to  the  negro,  he  said 
that  the  freedom  guaranteed  to  him  was  that  of  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

On  the  loth  of  October,  in  obedience  to  the  proclamation,  an  election  of 
delegates  took  place.  The  delegates  chosen  met  at  Tallahassee  on  the  25th 


420  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  October.  The  governor,  in  his  message  to  the  convention,  urged  the 
necessity  of  guaranteeing  the  civil  rights  of  the  negro.  He  undertook  to 
define  what  he  understood  to  be  implied  in  the  idea  of  freedom,  under  an 
organized  government.  He  recommended  that  the  convention  declare  the 
secession  act  null  and  void  from  the  beginning  ;  but  that  body  only  agreed  to 
declare  it  void.  The  ordinance  for  repudiating  the  debt  contracted  by  the 
state  in  aid  of  the  rebellion  was  adopted.  The  convention  ordered  an  elec 
tion  for  governor,  legislature,  other  state  officers,  and  congressmen.  It  was 
to  take  place  on  November  29th,  and  the  legislature  was  to  convene  on  the 
third  Monday  in  December.  The  election  resulted  in  the  choice  of  David 
S.  Walker  for  governor,  and  Ferdinand  McLeod  for  Representative  in  Con 
gress.  The  vote  polled  was  less  than  4,000,  or  little  more  than  one-fourth 
of  that  cast  in  1860  for  the  Presidential  candidates. 

The  legislature  met  at  the  time  appointed, —  December  i8th.  It  was  or 
ganized.  The  provisional  governor  renewed  his  suggestions  in  regard  to 
the  negroes.  He  added,  that  they  should  be  required  to  fulfill  their  contracts 
of  labor.  Three  days  later  he  was  superseded.  This  was  done  by  order 
of  President  Johnson.  The  governor-elect,  Walker,  was  immediately  inau 
gurated  ;  but  for  some  reason  he  failed  to  assume  the  duties  of  administration 
until  Jan.  17,  1866.  In  his  inaugural  address,  Governor  Walker  indicated  a 
policy  similar  to  that  of  his  predecessor.  He  was  opposed  to  granting  suf 
frage  to  the  negro.  The  direct  tax  imposed  by  Congress  upon  all  the  states, 
during  the  war,  remained  to  be  collected  at  its  close,  in  the  states  which 
were  then  in  arms.  The  quota  of  Florida  was  $77,522.  The  legislature 
memorialized  Congress  to  allow  the  state  to  assume  this  tax  as  a  debt,  and 
thus  to  waive  its  collection.  In  the  end,  however,  this  tax  was  abandoned 
altogether  by  the  government,  as  to  the  South,  after  some  of  it  had  been  col 
lected. 

The  legislature  ratified  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to  the  United  States 
Constitution.  But  this  was  not  done  until  the  28th  of  December,  ten  days 
after  Mr.  Seward  had  announced  that  the  amendment  had  become  a  part  of 
the  Constitution. 

An  act  passed  on  Jan.  1 1 ,  1866,  while  it  accorded  to  the  colored  people  the 
right  to  sue  and  be  sued,  and  abolished  the  laws  relating  to  slaves  and  free 
negroes,  provided  that  the  laws  forbidding  the  migration  of  free  negroes 
into  the  state,  and  the  sale  of  fire-arms  to  them,  should  continue  in  force. 
Another  act  of  the  same  date  required  all  colored  inhabitants  living  together 
as  husband  and  wife,  and  who  had  not  been  joined  as  such  agreeably  to  the 
laws,  and  who  should  desire  to  continue  in  that  relation,  to  appear  within 
nine  months  after  the  passage  of  the  act  before  some  person  legally  authorized 
to  perform  the  ceremony,  and  be  joined  in  matrimony.  The  issue  of  the 
prior  cohabitation  of  such  parties  was  declared  to  be  legitimate.  All  laws 
relating  to  marriage  between  white  persons  were  extended  to  people  of  color. 


REORGANIZATION  IN  VIRGINIA.  421 

An  act  of  January  1 2  related  to  contracts  of  persons  of  color.  It  provided 
that  they  should  be  in  writing,  in  duplicate,  and  that  they  should  be  explained 
to  the  parties  in  the  presence  of  two  witnesses.  One  copy  was  to  be  re 
tained  by  the  employer,  and  the  other  to  be  filed  with  some  judicial  officer. 
Contracts  for  service  or  labor  for  less  than  thirty  days  might  be  made  by 
parol.  Refusal  or  neglect  by  the  employed  to  perform  the  stipulations  of 
the  contract  by  willful  disobedience  of  orders,  wanton  impudence  or  disre 
spect  to  the  employer,  or  agent,  failure  or  refusal  to  perform  the  work  as 
signed,  or  idleness  or  abandonment  of  the  premises, —  subjected  the  offender 
on  complaint  of  the  employer  or  his  agent,  under  oath,  to  the  penalties  of 
the  vagrant  act.  The  offender,  in  such  case,  immediately,  or  at  the  expira 
tion  of  his  contract,  was  liable  to  summary  ejection  from  the  house  occupied 
by  him,  on  the  application  of  the  employer  to  the  judge  of  the  criminal  court. 
The  question  of  failure  of  the  employer  to  comply  with  the  contract,,  was 
triable  by  jury  on  complaint  of  the  laborer  to  the  criminal  judge.  Either 
party  was  entitled  to  an  appeal. 

Thus  was  Florida  launched  again  upon  a  sea  of  troubles.  Was  she  to 
remain  tranquil  ?  The  sequel  will  show. 

The  passage  of  the  secession  ordinance  by  Virginia  in  1861  was  the  sig 
nal  for  the  secession  of  the  western  from  the  eastern  counties.  The  new 
State  of  West  Virginia  came  into  being  in  an  abnormal  manner.  She  was 
admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  free  and  independent  state. 

The  original  Pierpont  government  of  Virginia  was  recognized  by  President 
Lincoln.  Its  organization  was  completed  by  President  Johnson.  Other  states, 
some  successfully  and  some  unsuccessfully,  followed  the  example  of  Vir 
ginia.  The  subsequent  chapters  will  show  the  trials  through  which  these 
states  passed  before  they  became  engrafted  upon  the  Federal  stock  by  ac 
cepting  the  amendments  of  the  Constitution,  and  other  conditions.  It  is 
enough  now  to  say,  that  the  only  condition  annexed  to  the  recognition  of  a 
seceding  state  was,  that  there  should  be  a  proportion  of  loyal  or  pardoned 
people  in  it,  of  one-tenth  or  more  to  the  population.  These  were  to  give  the 
initiative  to  the  movement.  Forty  counties  in  Virginia  became  the  only  new 
state  created  during  the  war,  except  Nevada.  Their  delegates  were  thought 
to  have  power  to  break  up  a  sovereign  state  into  fragments  equally  sovereign. 
The  Senators  and  Representatives  of  this  new  creation  sat  in  Congress,  and 
voted  on  problems  concerning  the  status  of  the  Old  Dominion.  Was  she 
legitimate,  and  if  not,  was  she  in  existence  at  all  ?  Such  was  one  of  the 
inconsistencies  which  spring  up  when  the  law  of  force  directs  the  move 
ments  of  men  toward  social  order. 

The  futile  attempt  to  organize  a  loyal  government  in  a  few  of  the  eastern 
counties  and  parts  of  counties  which  had  come  under  the  control  of  the 
Union  forces  in  1863  and  1864,  deserves  notice.  It  was  an  experiment  at 


422  THREE  DECABES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

reconstruction,  although  its  immediate  results  were  insignificant.  Not  more 
than  four  or  five  entire  counties,  with  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth,  and  parts 
•of  other  counties,  participated  in  this  enterprise.  Although  a  constitution 
was  formed,  and  state  officers  and  congressmen  were  elected,  the  project 
never  received  the  recognition  of  Congress.  It  is  true  that  the  Senate,  years 
after  the  event,  paid  one  of  the  Senators-elect,  Mr.  Segar,  a  year's  salary 
for  his  attempt  to  serve  the  cause  of  reunion.  But  this  sum  was  paid  more 
on  the  plea  ad  misericordiam ;  for  this  gentleman  had  grown  old  and  poor 
in  waiting  for  his  recompense.  General  Butler,  in  June,  1864,  put  the 
question  to  the  vote  in  Norfolk  City,  whether  the  people  preferred  the  im 
perfect  and  powerless  civil  government  under  "Governor"  Pierpont,  with 
the  payment  of  taxes  to  support  it,  to  the  inexpensive  but  despotic  rule  ot 
the  military.  It  was  decided,  by  a  large  majority,  in  favor  of  the  latter. 
General  Butler  thereupon  issued  an  order  forbidding  all  attempts  to  exercise 
civil  authority  within  the  city  of  Norfolk.  Mr.  Pierpont  appealed  to  the 
United  States  Circuit  Court.  Backed  by  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Attorney-General 
Bates,  the  court  decided  in  favor  of  the  civil  authority.  There  was  a  promise 
that  President  Lincoln  would  interpose  and  restrain  the  action  of  the  mili 
tary.  Nevertheless,  in  the  midst  of  the  whirl  of  more  important  events, 
nothing  was  done.  The  military  authorities  prevailed. 

Richmond  was  evacuated  on  the  night  of  April  2,  1865.  On  the  morn 
ing  of  the  3d,  General  Weitzel  marched  in  without  opposition.  He  was 
greeted  with  a  hearty  welcome  from  the  mass  of  the  people.  A  dispatch 
was  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  War.  It  said  that  General  Weitzel  found  much 
suffering  and  poverty  among  the  population.  The  rich  as  well  as  the  poor 
were  destitute  of  food.  Supplies  were  issued  to  all  who  took  the  oath.  The 
inhabitants  were  about  twenty  thousand,  half  of  them  of  African  descent. 
Mr.  Lincoln,  who  was  at  City  Point  during  these  last  throes  of  the  Con 
federacy,  entered  Richmond  on  the  4th.  While  there,  ex-Judge  Camp 
bell,  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  saw  him.  He  suggested  that  the 
President  might  negotiate  with  the  state  for  a  restoration  to  the  Union.  In 
the  Hampton  Roads  conference,  Mr.  Lincoln  had  taken  the  ground  that  he 
could  recognize  neither  the  so-called  "  Confederate  States"  authorities,  nor 
those  of  the  states  which  were  insurgent.  But,  in  his  anxiety  for  peace  and 
restoration,  he  was  now  willing  to  avail  himself  of  any  feasible  means  to  those 
ends.  He  therefore  authorized  General  Weitzel  to  allow  the  members  of  the 
legislature  to  assemble  and  consult  with  reference  to  restoration  ;  but  for  no 
other  purpose. 

On  the  1 2th  of  the  month,  the  Richmond  Whig,  which  had  appeared  as 
a  Union  newspaper  immediately  after  the  abandonment  of  Richmond  by  Mr. 
Davis  and  his  government,  published  an  address  to  the  people  of  Virginia. 
This  address  was  signed  by  members  of  the  legislature,  and  other  promi 
nent  citizens.  In  view  of  the  fall  of  the  Confederacy,  and  the  surrender 


REORGANIZATION  IN  VIRGINIA.  423 

of  its  forces,  it  earnestly  requested  the  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  and 
members  of  the  legislature  to  repair  to  Richmond  by  the  25th  of  April. 
But  the  meeting  of  this  legislative  body  never  took  place.  Mr.  Lincoln  him 
self  forbade  it.  His  assassination,  soon  after,  so  exasperated  the  country, 
as  to  make  public  sentiment,  for  the  time,  intolerant  of  conciliatory  plans  of 
restoration.  The  matter  seemed  to  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the  secession 
leaders  themselves.  Major-General  Halleck  superseded  General  Weitzel  in 
the  command  at  Richmond.  He  forbade  the  meeting  of  the  members  of  this 
Confederate  legislature.  It  is  clear,  however,  from  Mr.  Lincoln's  guarded 
note  to  General  Weitzel,  that  he  was  far  from  intending  to  recognize  that 
so-called  legislature  of  Virginia.  On  the  contrary,  his  purpose  was  to  allow 
its  members,  as  the  leaders  of  public  opinion,  to  propose  measures  that 
might  result  in  the  restoration  of  peace  and  union.  He  had  no  sympathy 
with  the  spirit  of  partisan  or  sectional  hatred  which  would  have  excluded 
nine-tenths  of  the  intelligence,  wealth,  and  character  of  the  South  from 
participation  in  its  government  for  a  generation.  His  mind  and  heart 
were  cast  in  a  larger  mould.  On  the  9th  of  May,  1865,  President  John 
son  issued  an  "executive  order  to  re-establish  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  and  execute  the  laws  within  the  geographical  limits  known  as  the 
State  of  Virginia."  It  declared  null  and  void  all  acts  and  proceedings 
of  the  Confederate  and  state  governments  that  were  inconsistent  with  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States.  It  further  declared  that  all 
persons  who  claimed  to  exercise  authority  under  them  were  liable  to  the 
penalty  of  treason.  The  same  order  directed  the  members  of  the  Cabinet 
and  the  district  judge  to  proceed  to  put  in  force  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
pertaining  to  their  respective  departments.  The  last  section  recognized  the 
authority  of  Governor  Pierpont,  who  was  elected  by  the  Union  men  of  the 
West  Virginia  counties  ;  but  who,  when  they  assumed  an  independent  posi 
tion  as  a  state,  removed  the  seat  of  their  government  to  Alexandria. 

The  constitution  framed  at  Alexandria,  in  February,  1864,  by  delegates 
from  ten  counties  and  parts  of  counties,  restricted  suffrage  to  persons,  who 
had  not  borne  arms  against  the  United  States,  nor  given  aid  and  assistance 
to  its  enemies,  since  Jan.  i,  1864.  This  was  as  far  back  as  the  delegates 
could  go  in  the  way  of  disfranchisement  and  leave  themselves  any  con 
stituents.  It  now  became  a  necessity  to  open  the  door  still  wider,  other 
wise  there  would  remain  nine-tenths  of  the  counties,  not  only  without 
voters,  but  without  men  enough  qualified  to  hold  the  county  offices.  The 
happy  thought  of  sending  "  carpet-baggers"  to  these  counties  for  this  pur 
pose  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  Governor  Pierpont ;  and  he  accordingly 
felt  constrained  to  recommend  an  extension  of  the  elective  franchise.  He 
called  a  special  session  of  the  legislature  to  meet  June  20.  In  his  message 
to  that  body  he  stated  his  difficulties  pointedly.  He  recommended  the 
President's  amnesty  oath,  or  one  of  similar  import,  in  place  of  the  one  pre- 


424  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

scribed  in  the  constitution.  Acting  on  this  suggestion,  the  legislature  sub 
mitted  the  question  to  the  popular  vote.  The  constitution  was  amended 
accordingly  with  little  opposition. 

This  loyal  reorganization  of  the  state  government  of  Virginia  was  based 
on  the  action  of  the  western  counties,  in  the  year  1862  ;  and  among  the 
first  acts  of  the  legislature  was  an  effort  to  destroy  the  ladder  on  which  they 
had  ascended,  as  they  believed,  into  the  Union.  In  other  words,  they  at 
tempted  to  repeal,  and  did  repeal,  so  far  as  their  action  was  valid,  the  con 
sent  given  by  the  legislature  of  May  13,  1862,  to  the  division  of  the  state. 
A  bill  to  this  effect  was  introduced  in  the  lower  house  of  the  legislature 
early  in  the  session.  The  rules  were  suspended,  and  it  was  passed  with 
out  opposition.  The  bill  was  sent  to  the  Senate,  where  it  was  passed  with 
equal  celerity.  It  is  probable  that  Governor  Pierpont  and  his  friends  were 
as  much  in  favor  of  this  act  as  the  newly  enfranchised  members  of  the  as 
sembly  ;  since  it  would  have  given  strength  to  the  Union  sentiment  in  the 
state.  By  the  same  act,  the  consent  heretofore  given  to  the  transfer  of  the 
counties  of  Berkeley  and  Jefferson  to  West  Virginia  was  repealed.  But  this 
procedure  on  the  part  of  eastern  Virginia,  under  her  inchoate  and  unrecog 
nized  government,  was  disregarded  by  Congress.  If  eastern  Virginians 
claimed  and  acted  on  the  disputed  right  to  secede,  might  not  western 
Virginia  act  on  the  indisputable  right  to  rise  against  secession  ? 

The  legislature  cordially  indorsed  the  policy  of  President  Johnson.  It 
declared  the  purpose  of  the  people  of  the  state.  That  purpose  was  to  stand 
by  the  results  of  the  war  ;  including  the  abolition  of  slavery.  It  denounced 
the  efforts  of  those  who  attempted  to  misrepresent  their  views  to  their  injury. 
The  closing  resolution,  protesting  against  amendments  to  the  National  Con 
stitution,  shows  how  completely  the  little  nucleus  of  original  Republicanism 
had  been  drowned  out  by  the  influx  of  voters  and  representatives,  under  the 
amended  state  constitution.  The  legislature  passed  an  act,  regulating  con 
tracts  between  white  and  colored  persons.  The  colored  man  was  not  to  be 
bound  by  an  agreement  to  labor  for  a  white  man  for  a  longer  period  than  two 
months,  unless  the  contract  was  in  writing,  properly  authenticated  and  wit 
nessed.  The  masters  of  apprentices  were  bound  to  teach  them  to  read  and 
write.  A  vigorous  vagrant  act  was  passed,  which  brought  down  a  military 
veto  in  these  words  :  "  It  is  ordered  that  no  magistrate,  civil  officer,  or  other 
person  shall  in  any  way  or  manner  apply,  or  attempt  to  apply  the  provisions 
of  said  statute  to  any  colored  person  in  this  department."  The  order 
should  have  been  made  applicable  to  all  cases,  without  regard  to  color. 
The  statute  seems  to  have  been  general  in  its  application.  The  order 
should  have  been  as  general.  There  was  no  reason  why  the  poor  whites 
should  be  left  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  Virginia  justices  of  the  peace. 
President  Johnson  allowed  this  order  to  go  into  operation  ;  and  the  legislative 
enactment,  therefore,  fell  to  the  ground.  An  act  was  passed,  giving  colored 


REORGANIZATION  IN  LOUISIANA.  425 

people  the  right  to  testify  in  all  cases  in  which  any  of  the  race  were  parties. 
It  was  thus,  through  the  fires  of  fresh  contentions,  that  the  proud  state  of 
Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Henry  passed  from  chaos  to  cosmos ; 
the  cosmos,  albeit,  not  entirely  rounded  with  beauty,  nor  lustrous,  as  yet, 
with  its  olden  benignity  and  glory. 

New  Orleans  fell  under  the  control  of  the  United  States  forces  in  April, 
1862.  For  some  time  the  city  and  its  vicinity  were  governed  by  the  military, 
under  the  command  of  Maj.-Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler.  His  rule  at  the  time 
was  denounced  by  the  Southern  people  as  brutal  and  cruel.  But  a  change 
of  General  Butler's  political  course,  in  recent  years,  and  many  revelations  of 
his  better  nature  have  brought  about  a  more  charitable  feeling  towards  this 
remarkable  civilian,  jurist,  advocate,  soldier,  and  statesman.  The  colored 
people  regarded  him  as  a  deliverer  and  friend.  Some  of  their  encomiums 
upon  him  for  his  service  in  New  Orleans  seem  unconscious  irony  ;  but  they 
were  far  from  this,  they -were  sincere  expressions  of  gratitude  to  which  he 
was  well  entitled.  The  writer  once  asked  General  Garfield  what  was  the 
best  specimen  of  African  humor  he  had  heard  in  his  experience,  North  and 
South.  He  related  this :  The  colored  folk  of  New  Orleans,  at  a  banquet, 
proposed  the  health  of  General  Butler,  their  friend,  in  this  unique  fashion  : 
"  Here's  to  General  Butler.  He  has  a  white  face,  but  he  has  a  black  heart." 
Whatever  the  color,  there  can  be  no  question  of  its  generous  and  philan 
thropic  instincts.  Whatever  may  be  the  political  and  party  inconsistencies  of 
this  civic  and  martial  hero  of  a  hundred  fights,  he  is  always  consistently 
faithful  to  what  he  regards  as  right.  His  ultimate  good  temper  and  lack  of 
malice  adorn  a  character  worth  the  study  of  the  mental  and  moral  philo 
sopher.  The  memories  of  many  years  in  Congress  with  this  man  of  sur 
prising  intellect  and  extraordinary  acquirements  in  every  branch  of  knowl 
edge,  during  which  every  phase  of  his  many-sided  character,  and  every 
angle  of  his  singular  course  has  been  turned  toward  the  observation  of  a 
critical  public,  induce  the  writer  to  say,  that  after  every  fierce  wrangle  or 
debate  on  the  exciting  topic  of  those  years,  or  during  the  hours  given  to 
social  intercourse  in  and  around  the  House,  there  has  been  encountered  in 
this  man's  conduct  nothing  but  gentleness  and  justice  toward  the  poor  and 
heavy-laden  ;  and  always  unswerving  fidelity  to  friends.  Not  a  few  instances 
of  his  humanity  and  generosity  to  persons  who  were  conspicuous  for  their 
hostility  to  the  Union,  are  now  told  by  his  old  enemies.  Much  remains  to  be 
told  of  General  Butler  which  would  reflect  the  highest  credit  upon  his  heart 
and  head. 

In  August,  1862,  Gen.  George  F.  Shepley,  of  Maine,  was  appointed 
military  governor  of  Louisiana.  He  instituted  new  civil  courts  for  the  city 
and  county,  or  parish,  on  the  model  of  those  which  had  formerly  existed, 
and  with  the  same  jurisdiction,  modified  only  as  far  as  was  necessary  under 

27 


426  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  circumstances.  These  courts  entered  upon  the  discharge  of  their  duties 
about  the  ist  of  November,  1862.  In  December,  a  supreme  court  was 
extemporized  by  the  President.  Its  jurisdiction  extended  over  such  part  of 
the  state  as  was  within  the  Union  lines,  which  was  a  variable  area.  Ap 
peals  lay  from  the  city  courts  and  from  the  provost  courts  to  this  supreme 
court. 

In  February,  1863,  an  enterprise  was  set  on  foot  for  the  reorganization  of 
the  state  government  on  a  loyal  basis.  The  question  was  brought  before 
the  Union  associations.  They  came  to  the  agreement  that  as  a  first  step,  a 
registrar  should  be  appointed  for  each  parish,  who  was  to  be  directed  to  open 
books,  and  to  inscribe  therein  the  names  and  residences  of  all  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  who  having  resided  six  months  in  the  state  and  one  month  in 
the  parish,  should  swear  to  the  fact  and  take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  and  also 
swear  that  they  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  voluntarily,  for  the  purpose  of 
forming  a  state  government  loyal  to  the  United  States.  An  election  was  to  be 
ordered  by  the  military  governor  as  soon  as  a  sufficient  area  of  the  territory 
of  the  state  to  justify  it  should  be  brought  within  the  Union  lines.  The  ratio 
of  representation  in  the  convention  was  to  be  one  delegate  for  2,500  of  the 
white  population  according  to  the  last  census.  The  first  and  second  congres 
sional  districts  of  Louisiana  were  excepted  by  President  Lincoln  from  the 
operation  of  his  Emancipation  Proclamation.  There  slavery  still  existed. 
Thomas  J.  Durant  was  appointed  attorney-general  and  commissioner  of 
registration.  This  gentleman  was  at  the  same  time  president  of  the  "  Free 
State  General  Committee."  A  registration  of  the  city  votes  was  made.  But 
that  in  the  parishes  was  scarcely  begun,  when  the  state  was  overrun  by  the 
Confederate  forces.  This  caused  a  suspension  of  the  work. 

Another  movement  to  reorganize  the  state  government  was  made  on  the 
part  of  the  planters,  in  June,  1863,  under  the  Constitution  as  it  existed  at 
the  beginning  of  the  war.  A  delegation  was  sent  to  Washington  to  lay  this 
proposition  before  the  President,  who  was  petitioned  to  order  a  general  elec 
tion  on  November  ist.  The  purpose  was  to  save  slavery  ;  but  the  President, 
without  alluding  to  slavery,  declined  to  order  the  election,  on  the  ground 
that  another  movement  was  pending  for  the  restoration  of  the  state  govern 
ment.  It  may  be  added,  however,  that  a  more  substantial  reason  for  the 
refusal  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  slaves  having  been  declared  free  by  the 
proclamation  of  the  President,  with  the  indorsement  of  Congress,  the  faith 
and  honor  of  the  Nation  were  pledged  to  make  good  that  promise  of  freedom. 
The  delays  caused  by  the  inroads  of  the  Confederate  forces  in  the  parishes 
around  the  city  induced  the  President  to  consent  to  a  reorganization  of  the 
state  on  a  basis  of  less  population  than  he  had  prescribed  in  his  Amnesty 
proclamation. 

The  free  colored  people  presented  a  petition  to  the  military  governor, 
Shepley,  asking  to  be  recognized  as  citizens  and  voters.  Their  petition  was 


REORGANIZATION  IN  LOUISIANA.  427 

not  granted.  But  at  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  and  in  disregard  of  the 
spontaneous  movements  of  the  people  for  reconstruction,  Major-General 
Banks  issued  a  proclamation.  It  was  dated  Jan.  n,  1864.  It  ordered  an 
election  for  governor  and  other  officers,  and  delegates  to  a  state  convention. 
For  the  time  being  they  were  to  constitute  the  civil  government  of  the  state, 
"  under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  Louisiana,"  except  so  much  of  the  con 
stitution  as  sanctioned  and  regulated  slavery.  The  election  was  to  be  held  on 
the  22d  of  February.  "This  proceeding,"  he  declared,  "is  not  intended  to 
ignore  the  right  of  property  existing  prior  to  the  rebellion,  nor  to  preclude 
the  claim  for  compensation  of  loyal  citizens  for  losses  sustained  or  other 
authorized  acts  of  government."  The  oath  of  allegiance  prescribed  by  the 
President's  proclamation,  with  the  condition  affixed  to  the  elective  franchise 
by  the  constitution  of  Louisiana,  was  to  constitute  the  qualification  of  voters. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  this  proclamation  was  inconsistent  with  itself,  in 
more  respects  than  one,  as  was  pointed  out  by  the  Free  State  Committee,  as 
well  as  with  the  subsequent  course  of  General  Banks,  in  regard  to  the  negroes. 
It  proposed  to  organize  a  government  under  the  old  constitution,  and  yet  dis 
pensed  with  a  legislature,  wrhich  was  necessary  to  the  levying  of  taxes  and 
the  making  of  appropriations.  It  professed  to  recognize  the  existence  of 
slavery,  and  the  right  of  loyal  slave-owners  to  compensation  for  the  loss  of 
their  enlisted  bondmen ;  and  on  the  23d  of  February  another  proclamation 
was  issued,  in  which  the  negroes  were  treated  as  freedmen.  The  Free  State 
Committee  resented  this  arbitrary  interference  with  their  efforts  to  re-establish 
civil  government.  They  issued  a  spirited  protest  against  it. —  It  must,  how 
ever,  be  admitted  that  the  code  of  General  Banks  for  the  government  of  the 
negroes  was,  under  the  circumstances,  and  for  the  time,  a  wise  one.  It  is 
said  to  have  operated  beneficially,  and  it  probably  gave  expression  to  the 
views  of  President  Lincoln. 

General  Banks,  on  the  i3th  of  February,  1864,  issued  a  general  order  in 
regard  to  the  qualification  of  voters  in  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  state 
convention.  He  prescribed  the  qualifications  of  voters  in  terms  which  would 
embrace  every  citizen  of  the  state  who  was  willing  to  take  and  subscribe 
President  Lincoln's  amnesty  oath.  This  was  simply  an  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  proclamations  and  laws  of  Con 
gress  in  regard  to  negroes  and  slaves.  The  election  was  held  on  February 
22d.  There  were  three  candidates  for  governor,  namely,  Michael  Hahn,  B. 
F.  Flanders,  and  J.  Q.  A.  Fellows.  Only  10,270  votes  were  cast,  in  a 
white  population  of  about  350,000.  More  than  half  the  votes  were  cast  in 
New  Orleans.  The  soldiers  participated.  Mr.  Hahn  received  a  majority  of 
the  votes,  and  was  inaugurated  on  the  4th  of  March,  amid  the  firing  of  can 
non  and  ringing  of  bells.  General  Banks  addressed  the  people  on  the 
auspicious  occasion.  President  Lincoln  recognized  Mr.  Hahn  as  governor. 
The  writer  recalls  Governor  Hahn.  He  was  short,  and  lame.  He  had 


428  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

dark,  curly  hair,  and  a  brown  complexion.  He  was  of  a  vivacious  tem 
per.  He  served  in  Congress  during  the  first  part  of  the  war.  Whether 
or  not  he  was  fitted  for  the  exacting  duties  of  governor  of  this  state,  to  which 
the  passionate  Creole  and  the  chivalric  Southron  gave  tone  and  temper, 
he  was  a  most  amiable  and  persuasive  gentleman,  and  accomplished  in 
the  amenities  of  congressional  life.  He  did  not  debate  a  great  deal ;  but 
he  had  a  fervid  love  for  his  state.  He  seemed  to  pet  the  pelicans  —  mother 
and  offspring — which  plume  themselves  upon  the  escutcheon  of  Louisiana. 
Once,  in  speaking,  he  referred  with  a  "proudly  eminent"  gesture,  to  this 
symbol  of  sovereignty  and  emblem  of  maternal  sacrifice.  The  young  peli 
cans,  in  gaudy  hues,  upon  the  glass  panel  in  the  ceiling  of  the  chamber  of  the 
House,  continued  impassively  to  draw  their  life-blood  from  the  breast  of  their 
devoted  mother,  unmoved  from  their  attitude  of  nourishment  by  the  fervor  of 
the  allusion  ;  but  the  House  'was  moved.  The  illustration  smacked  of  blood. 
This  ornithological  mode  of  phlebotomy  seemed  so  apposite,  as  an  analogue 
of  the  war  of  the  minor  states  against  the  motherly  Federal  system,  that  the 
splendid  flight  of  elocution  evoked  uproarious  laughter  at,  not  with,  the 
eloquent  member. 

An  election  of  delegates  to  the  state  convention  for  the  revision  of  the  con 
stitution  was  ordered  on  the  i  ith,  to  take  place  on  the  zyth  of  March.  It  was 
ordered,  not  by  the  recently  inaugurated  governor,  but  by  General  Banks, 
who  prescribed  the  qualifications  of  electors,  and  the  number  of  delegates  to 
be  chosen.  Each  parish  within  the  military  lines,  except  Orleans,  was  to 
vote  for  delegates  by  general  ticket.  The  voters  were  to  be  all  white  male 
citizens  of  the  state  who  had  been  resident  in  it  twelve  months,  and  in 
the  parish  six  months,  and  who  had  taken  and  subscribed  the  President's 
amnesty  oath.  On  the  i6th  Governor  Hahn  issued  a  proclamation  to  the 
sheriffs,  directing  them  to  open  the  polls  and  hold  elections.  The  election 
was  held  on  the  28th  of  March.  Ninety-seven  delegates  were  chosen.  Sixty- 
three  were  from  New  Orleans.  The  number  of  votes  was  never  stated. 
This  leads  to  the  inference  that  it  was  not  larger,  if  so  large,  as  that  cast  on 
the  22d  of  February,  for  governor.  The  convention  assembled  on  the  6th  of 
April.  It  was  organized  on  the  yth  by  the  election  of  E.  H.  Durell,  as 
President.  After  a  session  of  seventy-eight  days,  the  convention  adjourned, 
having  completed  its  labors.  The  constitution  framed  by  this  convention 
abolished  slavery,  restricted  suffrage  to  the  white  men,  but  authorized  the 
legislature  to  extend  suffrage.  It  provided  for  general  education.  It  sub 
mitted  this  constitution  to  the  people  for  ratification.  The  election  for  this 
purpose  was  held  on  the  5th  of  September.  For  ratification  there  were  6,836 
votes,  against  1,566;  total,  8,402.  In  a  white  population  of  350,000,  this 
vote  was  scarcely  enough  to  give  assurance  of  a  stable  government,  or  evi 
dence  of  returning  Republican  rule  to  the  state. 

At  the  election  which  ratified   the  constitution,  a  legislature  and  a  dele- 


REORGANIZATION  IN  LOUISIANA.  429 

gallon  of  five  members  to  Congress  were  chosen.  The  legislature  was  almost 
unanimously  in  favor  of  the  free  state  constitution.  Seven  electors  for 
President  were  chosen  by  this  body  ;  but  the  state  not  having  been  re-admit 
ted  into  the  Union,  the  electoral  vote  was  not  counted.  In  fact,  only  about  one- 
fourth  of  the  territory  of  the  state  was  within  the  control  of  the  new  govern 
ment  ;  the  remaining  three-fourths  being  still  under  the  control  of  the  Con 
federates.  So  feeble  was  the  civil  authority  of  the  new  government,  even 
within  the  parishes  that  had  participated  in  the  elections,  that  the  adminis 
tration  of  justice  had  to  be  supplemented  by  martial  law.  The  legislature 
having  elected  Governor  Hahn  United  States  Senator,  he  resigned  early  in 
1865  and  was  succeeded  by  the  lieutenant-governor,  J.  Madison  Wells. 

The  friends  of  the  Union  were  by  this  time  divided  into  two  parties, 
styling  themselves  respectively,  "The  National  Conservative  Union"  party, 
and  the  "Radical  Republicans."  "The  National  Democratic"  party,  in  a 
popular  convention,  on  October  2d,  denounced  the  constitution  of  1864  as 
a  fraud  which  had  not  the  sanction  of  the  people.  It  demanded  a  state  con 
vention  for  the  formation  of  a  new  constitution.  At  an  election  for  the 
legislature  this  party  carried  almost  every  district ;  but,  strange  to  say,  they 
renominated  by  their  convention,  J.  Madison  Wells,  as  governor,  who 
accepted  their  nomination.  This  was  done,  however,  because  he  had  been 
recognized  by  President  Johnson. 

During  the  month  of  November,  1865,  Henry  C.  Warmouth,  a  radical 
Republican,  was  elected  as  a  "  Delegate"  to  Congress  from  the  "  Territory 
of  Louisiana."  He  received  19,000  votes.  A  part  of  them  were  colored  — 
probably  the  greater  part.  General  Warmouth  was  a  Northern  man,  a  brave 
soldier  of  fine  presence  and  winning  manners.  He  was  never  backward 
in  the  contests  and  tragedies  which  Louisiana  experienced  in  the  second 
decade  from  1865  to  1875.  The  radical  Republicans,  no  less  than  the  na 
tional  Democrats,  demanded  the  overthrow  of  the  government  formed  in 
1864.  They  denied  the  right  of  the  President  to  restore  the  state  to  the 
Union  by  proclamation.  They  claimed  that  Congress  had  that  power.  They 
declared  that  nine-tenths  of  the  white  voters  were  disloyal,  and  that  it  was 
inexpedient  to  apply  for  admission  into  the  Union  under  such  circumstances  ; 
that  their  hope  was  in  Congress  ;  and  that  the  premature  admission  of  Sena 
tors  and  Representatives  from  Louisiana  would  be  disastrous  and  place  them 
under  Confederate  rule. 

The  governor  of  Louisiana  called  an  extra  session  of  the  legislature  to 
meet  Nov.  23,  1864.  His  message  was  confined  to  objects  of  local  in 
terest.  He  favored  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  ;  thus  ignoring  the 
election  of  Hahn  and  R.  K.  Cutler  by  the  preceding  legislature,  in  the  early 
part  of  the  year.  He  was  evidently  disposed  to  gratify  the  re-enfranchised 
Confederates.  Whether  he  flattered  himself  that  he  would  be  chosen  Sen 
ator,  is  not  apparent ;  but  if  such  was  his  expectation  he  was  doomed  to 


430  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

disappointment,  as  Randall  Hunt  and  Henry  Bozer  were  chosen.  An  ob 
jection  to  the  election  at  that  time  was  answered  by  the  statement  that  Hahn 
and  Cutler  had  applied  in  vain  for  admission.  But  it  was  singular  logic 
which  led  the  majority  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Senate  would  be  more 
ready  to  admit  members  chosen  by  the  men  who  had  just  laid  down  their 
arms  as  enemies  of  the  Union,  than  by  those  who  professed  to  be  its  ardent 
friends.  The  amendment  to  the  United  States  Constitution  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  was  ratified,  with  a  proviso  declaring  that  it  conferred  no  right  to 
legislate  on  the  civil  relations  of  the  negroes. 

The  legislature  which  met  Jan.  22,  1866,  passed  an  act  for  the  election 
of  mayor  and  other  city  officers  at  an  earlier  date  than  that  established 
by  law.  The  governor  vetoed  this  act ;  but  immediately  both  houses  passed 
it  over  the  veto  by  majorities  of  more  than  ten  to  one.  The  election  was 
accordingly  held  March  12,  1866.  The  voters  were  required  to  take  and 
subscribe  President  Johnson's  amnesty  oath,  of  May  29 ;  but  no  man  could 
vote  if  excluded  by  any  one  of  the  fourteen  exceptions.  The  mayor,  and 
nearly  every  city  official  elected,  belonged  to  the  so-called  "  National  Demo 
cratic"  school  of  politics  —  that  is  to  say,  to  the  party  which  seceded,  and 
fought  against  the  Union.  The  mayor-elect,  John  F.  Monroe,  was  tempo 
rarily  suspended  by  General  Canby,  on  the  charge  that  he  "had  uttered 
rebellious  language  after  the  city  had  been  captured  by  the  Federal  troops, 
and  that  he  refused  the  oath  of  allegiance."  But  his  disabilities  were  re 
moved  by  the  order  of  suspension.  On  May  I5th,  Mr.  Monroe  assumed  the 
duties  of  his  office. 

Early  in  March,  the  legislature  was  on  the  eve  of  passing  a  bill  for  call 
ing  a  convention  to  remodel  the  constitution  ;  but  when  it  had  been  ordered 
to  be  engrossed  in  the  house  of  representatives,  by  a  vote  of  nearly  three  to 
one,  a  dispatch  from  Washington  from  the  commissioners  of  the  state  who 
had  been  sent  to  confer  with  the  President,  arrested  the  proceeding.  The 
bill  was  laid  on  the  table.  The  President  desired  that  there  should  be  no 
further  agitation  on  the  subject  of  a  convention. 

The  attempt  by  the  Republicans  in  1866,  to  recall  the  convention  of  1864, 
was  the  cause  of  one  of  the  most  wanton  massacres  on  the  3oth  of  July,  that 
has  ever  disgraced  our  annals.  The  constitution  framed  by  that  body  in 
1864  failed  to  give  satisfaction  to  any  party.  It  was  finally  repudiated  by  a 
majority  of  those  who  made  it.  It  was  said  to  be  too  tame  and  conservative. 
It  restored  to  power  the  intelligent  Confederate  element.  The  ex-Confeder 
ates  denounced  it.  They  declared,  truly,  that  the  great  mass  of  the  people 
had  no  hand  in  framing  it.  It  failed  to  please  the  radicals.  It  greatly  dis 
pleased  the  negroes.  It  withheld  suffrage  from  men  of  color.  It  enfran 
chised  the  insurgents.  It  failed  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  majority  in 
Congress,  because,  while  it  restored  the  Confederates  to  power,  it  excluded 
the  negroes  from  political  rights. 


MASSACRE  AT  NEW  ORLEANS.  431 

The  white  radical  Republicans  were  the  least  numerous  part  of  the  popu 
lation,  but  they  were  backed  by  the  majority  in  Congress,  and  by  the  whole 
colored  population  of  the  state.  Their  leaders  were  in  part  Northern 
men.  They  had  belonged  to  or  had  followed  the  Union  armies,  or  were  old 
residents  of  New  Orleans.  They  were  re-enforced  by  disaffected  Confed 
erates,  who  thought  to  atone  for  their  recusancy  by  enthusiastic  support  of 
the  Union  cause.  They  did  this  by  showing  a  readiness  to  take  office  under 
the  auspices  of  the  "  old  flag." 

It  was  the  outside  encouragement,  congressional  and  Northern,  there 
fore,  which  emboldened  the  conventionists  of  1864  to  make  the  attempt  to 
reassemble,  and  remodel  the  constitution  and  government  of  the  state  in  the 
manner  proposed.  Trembling  for  their  lives,  in  the  midst  of  a  hostile  popu 
lation,  among  which  they  could  not  have  remained  but  for  the  presence  of 
the  United  States  army,  they  never  would  have  dared,  or  dreamed  of  the 
bold  enterprise,  if  they  had  relied  on  their  own  strength.  And  yet,  with 
the  colored  population  added,  they  seemed  to  be  a  majority  of  the  people. 
They  had  in  their  party  the  timid  and  vacillating  governor,  J.  Madison 
Wells,  of  unsavory  fame  in  the  electoral  count  of  1877  »  JU(%e  R«  K.  How- 
ell,  of  the  supreme  court;  Michael  Hahn,  the  Senator-elect  to  Congress, 
and  many  other  notable  persons.  There  was  no  reasonable  ground  for 
their  assumed  right  to  reassemble  and  exercise  the  authority,  once  dele 
gated,  but  now  lapsed,  of  amending  the  constitution.  But  the  governor  and  a 
judge  of  the  supreme  court  gave  their  sanction.  This  was  followed  by  an 
unwarrantable  proceeding  on  the  part  of  the  mayor,  to  attempt  the  suppression 
of  the  convention,  —  a  most  unwise  and  dangerous  movement.  His  order  was 
to  arrest  the  conventionists.  This  was  revolutionary.  The  execution  of  the 
order,  with  or  without  his  connivance,  was  simply  a  massacre.  And  the  mas 
sacre  was  committed  by  his  police.  They  marched  in  three  divisions  to  the 
hall  where  the  convention  was  sitting,  firing  on  the  unarmed  negroes  on  the 
streets.  The  police,  aided  by  a  mob,  surrounded  the  building,  fired  into  the 
windows,  broke  down  the  doors,  and  shot  down  the  unresisting  delegates  in 
their  seats.  The  city  firemen  and  other  organizations  joined  in  the  brutal 
work,  which  was  only  stopped  by  General  Baird,  the  Federal  commander, 
who  at  once  proclaimed  martial  law.  The  attempt  of  Mayor  Monroe  to 
exculpate  himself  from  the  crime  of  premeditated  and  wholesale  murder 
would  have  been  entitled  to  some  consideration  if  he  had  made  any  effort 
to  stop  the  massacre  ;  or  if  his  agents,  the  police,  had  been  brought  to  condign 
punishment.  But  instead  of  this,  not  one  of  them  was  removed  from  office, 
nor  even  rebuked  for  excessive  zeal  in  the  execution  of  the  order.  General 
Baird,  in  his  letter  to  Mayor  Monroe  of  July  26,  presented  the  true  state  of 
the  case  in  his  statement  before  the  convention  met,  namely,  that  if  the  con 
vention  had  the  right  to  assemble,  it  should  be  protected.  If  it  had  not  that 
right,  then  its  labors  amounted  to  only  a  harmless  pleasantry,  and  that  the 
mayor  had  no  right  to  interfere. 


432  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  grand  jury  of  Orleans  Parish  had  indicted  the  members  of  the  con 
vention.  President  Johnson  had  telegraphed  to  the  lieutenant-governor  that 
the  military  was  expected  to  sustain  and  not  obstruct  the  proceedings  of  the 
courts.  This  telegram  may  have  emboldened  Monroe  to  take  the  course 
he  did. 

Some  battles  were  fought  in  the  Civil  War  which  were  less  bloody  than 
this  riot.  This  reference  to  it  would  be  incomplete  without  a  list  of  the 
casualties.  The  report  of  Assistant-Surgeon  HartsufF,  of  the  United  States 
Army,  after  a  survey  of  the  field,  states  that  thirty-eight  were  killed,  and 
146  wounded  ;  of  the  latter,  eight  were  members  of  the  convention,  nine 
were  white  loyal  citizens,  119  were  colored  men,  and  ten  were  policemen. 
There  was  an  abatement  of  the  riotous  spirit  in  Louisiana  following  this 
terrible  affair.  Nothing  of  note  in  that  way  occurred  until  the  state  was 
subjected  to  the  Reconstruction  acts. 

In  1868,  the  new  constitution,  framed  in  conformity  with  the  requirements 
of  the  Reconstruction  acts,  was  ratified  by  a  decided  majority.  At  the  same 
time,  Henry  C.  Warmouth  was  elected  governor.  The  election  passed  off 
quietly.  Much  of  the  violence  and  crime  which  followed  might  have  been 
avoided  if  those  who  were  invested  with  authority  had  possessed  intelligence 
and  character.  But  as  specimens  of  the  unwisdom  and  the,  unscrupulous 
partisanship  which  were  clothed  with  authority,  the  following  facts  will 
serve  as  illustrations  :  The  presiding  officer  of  the  senate,  Oscar  I.  Dunn, 
a  man  of  color,  announced  at  the  meeting  of  that  body,  that  none  would 
be  regarded  as  qualified  senators  who  could  not  take  the  test  oath, —  the 
"  iron-clad,"  which  was  prescribed  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  1862.  The 
occupant  of  the  chair  in  the  house,  also  a  colored  man,  made  a  similar  an 
nouncement.  Nothing  of  this  kind  was  required  by  the  constitution  under 
which  they  were  about  to  organize  a  state  government.  On  the  contrary, 
that  constitution  prescribed  an  oath  for  members  different  in  language  and 
less  exclusive  in  import.  This  ruling  excluded  nearly  all  the  Democratic 
members,  and  their  names  were  not  called  by  the  clerk.  The  rulings  of 
these  presiding  officers  were  arrogant  and  impudent  usurpations.  The 
usurpers,  instead  of  being  impeached,  were  sustained  by  the  two  houses , 
and  the  Democratic  members  were  excluded  from  their  seats,  until  it  was 
announced  that  General  Grant  would  not  sustain  this  procedure.  —  He 
thought  the  members  should  be  admitted  on  taking  the  oath  prescribed  in 
the  constitution. —  The  legislature  passed  an  act  providing  for  the  appoint 
ment  of  five  police  commissioners  for  the  city.  Governor  Warmouth  gave 
three  of  these  important  places  to  colored  men.  In  harmony  with  these  acts, 
Thomas  W.  Conway,  preacher,  politician,  and  philanthropist,  introduced 
into  the  legislature  a  bill  for  the  organization  of  common  schools  which 
should  be  open  to  all  children  between  six  and  twenty-one  years  of  age, 
"without  distinction  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition";  and,  that  the 


SECRET  MILITARY  ORGANIZATIONS.  433 

measure  should  lack  no  feature  calculated  to  exasperate  the  white  race,  at 
tendance  on  the  schools  was  made  compulsory.  This  measure  was  not 
adopted  ;  but  it  showed  the  spirit  of  the  Northern  men  who  seemed  to  be  in 
spired  by  a  purpose  of  degrading  the  white  people,  and  of  arraying  race 
against  race.  It  was  thought  to  be  a  sure  method  of  preventing  the  colored 
people  from  falling  under  the  control  of  the  native  whites. 

The  renewal  of  acts  of  violence  which  followed  the  inauguration  of  the 
state  government  on  this  basis,  and  with  this  spirit  dominant  in  the  ruling 
party,  was  a  natural  consequence.  In  July,  information  reached  the  governor 
from  Franklin  and  other  northern  counties,  of  assassinations  and  outrages 
in  great  number.  They  came  with  petitions  for  protection.  He  submitted 
the  various  communications  which  reached  him  to  the  legislature.  That  body 
with  stupid  malignity  appealed  —  not  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  — 
but  to  General  Grant  for  military  aid.  But  the  governor  was  not  wanting  in 
intelligence.  He  vetoed  the  joint  resolution.  He  assigned  the  constitutional 
provision  as  his  reason  therefor.  A  new  resolution  was  introduced  and  passed 
by  the  two  houses.  It  was  at  once  forwarded  to  the  President  by  the  governor. 
It  was  accompanied  by  a  letter  in  which  the  President  was  told  that  150  men 
had  been  murdered  in  one  month  and  a  half;  that  the  Confederates  were  deter 
mined  to  kill  or  drive  away  Union  white  men  and  leading  colored  men  ;  and 
that  menaces  were  made  to  terrify  the  voters.  It  referred  to  a  sect,  known 
as  the  K.  W.  C.  This  sect  had  questions  and  oaths.  It  was  asserted  that 
its  object  was  to  intimidate  the  colored  folk,  to  precipitate  a  race  conflict,  and 
to  assassinate  leading  officers  of  the  legislature.  The  United  States  troops 
were  said  to  be  the  only  reliable  protection  against  this  secret  sect.  This 
sect  had  its  military  organizations.  It  drilled  openly  in  the  streets,  and  in 
halls  at  night.  This  indicated  an  impending  bloody  revolution.  It  implied 
ruin  to  the  state.  The  legislature  deprecated  the  use  of  the  militia,  as  the 
excitement  was  excessive.  It  asked  for  two  regiments  of  cavalry,  one  of 
infantry,  and  a  battery  of  artillery.  Some  of  the  newspapers  denounced 
these  statements  as  untrue.  They  said  that  they  were  willful  radical  fabrica 
tions.  They  called  for  the  names  of  the  murdered  parties,  with  the  cir 
cumstances  concerning  their  untimely  taking  off. 

There  is  a  wide  margin  of  difference  between  these  conflicting  state 
ments.  Doubtless  the  truth  lies  in  the  middle  of  them.  Riotous  demonstra 
tions  occurred  in  the  streets  of  New  Orleans,  and  among  the  victims  wras  a 
colored  orator  who  attempted  to  make  a  Democratic  speech.  The  United 
States  troops  were  sent,  in  response  to  the  call  of  the  legislature  and  gov 
ernor.  Their  presence  was  doubtless  salutary,  though  not  entirely  effica 
cious  ;  for  riots  continued  to  occur,  attended  with  the  shedding  of  blood. 
On  Sept.  22,  1868,  a  riot  occurred  in  New  Orleans,  under  the  following  cir 
cumstances.  That  being  the  year  of  the  Presidential  election,  politics  ran 
high.  On  the  occasion  referred  to,  the  colored  political  clubs,  in  marching 


434  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

through  the  streets,  halted  in  front  of  a  restaurant.  Some  one  inside  shouted 
for  Seymour  and  Blair.  This  caused  an  attack  upon  the  house  by  the  col 
ored  men,  which  resulted  in  the  killing  of  several  persons.  On  the  z8th  of 
the  same  month  a  serious  riot  occurred  at  Opelousas.  The  editor  of  the 
Republican  newspaper  at  that  place  was  whipped,  and  required  to  retract 
statements  made  in  an  article  which  had  appeared  in  his  paper.  A  report 
got  abroad  that  he  had  been  murdered.  Thereupon  bands  of  negroes  in 
the  neighborhood  armed  themselves  and  marched  upon  the  town.  The  citi 
zens  went  out  to  meet  them.  A  fight  occurred.  It  resulted  in  the  killing  of 
several  persons.  Two  days  before,  a  bloody  conflict  between  the  whites  and 
blacks  occurred  in  the  parish  of  St.  Bernard.  It  resulted  in  the  slaughter 
of  a  white  family,  the  burning  of  their  residence,  and  the  killing  or  wound 
ing  of  several  negroes.  Notwithstanding  these  disorders,  the  Presidential 
election  went  off  quietly,  resulting  in  a  large  majority  for  the  Democrats. 
The  state,  in  spite  of  disquietude,  conspiracies,  and  outbreakings  of  violence 
from  factions,  was  not  worse  than  might  have  been  expected  from  the  local 
isolation,  as  well  as  the  pervading  taint,  which  compromise,  early  and  gra 
ciously  made,  might  have  averted. 

Perhaps  in  no  other  part  of  the  South  was  the  confiscation  act  so  rigidly 
enforced  as  in  Louisiana.  Millions  worth  of  the  property  of  the  absentees 
was  seized  and  sold.  Yet  it  was  stated  by  Judge  Durell,  of  the  United  States 
District  Court,  that  the  proceeds  of  the  confiscation  sales  would  not  exceed 
$100,000.  A  defaulting  quartermaster  turned  over  $75  as  the  total  net  pro 
ceeds  of  the  sales  of  all  the  splendid  Parisian  furniture,  gold  and  silver  plate, 
and  the  immense  quantity  of  other  valuable  things  taken  from  the  houses  of 
the  registered  absentees. 

Never  did  a  state  suffer  like  Louisiana.  It  suffered  because  of  the  lack  of 
conciliation  with  firmness.  It  was  the  victim  of  that  policy  which,  as 
Macaulay  teaches,  follows  the  want  of  grace  early  tendered.  Conspiracies  and 
insurrections,  in  which  small  minorities  were  engaged,  and  the  outbreakings 
of  popular  violence,  unconnected  with  any  extensive  project  or  any  durable 
principle,  should  have  been  repressed  with  vigor  and  decision.  "To 
shrink  from  them  is  to  make  them  formidable.  But  no  wise  ruler  will  con 
found  the  pervading  taint  with  the  slight  local  isolation."  These  princi 
ples  the  author  endeavored  to  apply  to  the  bill  of  Henry  Winter  Davis, 
in  a  speech  on  the  4th  of  May,  1864.  Mr.  Davis  proposed  the  one- 
tenth  policy  of  suffrage  in  the  returning  states.  It  was  based  on  the 
President's  amnesty  and  negro  policies ;  but  five  months  had  then  passed, 
and  yet  there  were  seen  no  signs  of  thousands  of  Southern  citizens  rushing  to 
embrace  this  amnesty.  Unlike  the  acts  of  grace  granted  by  kings  to  their  recu 
sant  subjects,  of  which  history  is  full,  there  was  no  general  taking  of  the 
oath,  no  genuine  movement  toward  restoration,  but  a  fiercer  spirit  of  resistance, 
produced  by  the  unwise  and  exasperating  policy  of  the  Executive.  The  for- 


REORGANIZATION  IN  ARKANSAS.  435 

giveness  offered  by  the  President  was  deemed  a  mockery,  and  its  terms  an 
insult.  What  a  delusion  to  hold  out  such  a  Dead  Sea  apple  —  luscious  to 
the  eye,  but  ashes  to  the  lip  !  It  was  vain  to  expect  the  Southern  people,  in 
their  temper  after  the  war,  saddened  by  loss  and  irate  with  revenge,  to  do 
what  one  million  and  a  half  of  Northern  voters  would  scorn  to  do.  There 
was  no  hope  of  a  returning  South  by  such  a  plan.  It  was  an  amnesty  which 
was  a  juggle,  for  it  pleased  no  one  who  was  to  be  reached.  It  was  based  on 
a  proclamation  which  was  a  delusion,  for  no  one  was  freed  by  it  whom  our 
armies  had  not  enfranchised.  It  was  the  old  unsoundness,  newly  daubed 
with  untempered  mortar. 

There  was  one  chief  defect  in  the  President's  plan.  The  structure  was 
built  upon  his  proclamation  of  Emancipation.  The  same  defect  was  observed 
in  the  bill  of  Mr.  Davis.  That  too  was  based  on  the  policy  of  forced  eman 
cipation.  He  proposed  :  "  to  guarantee  to  certain  states,  whose  governments 
have  been  usurped  or  overthrown,  a  republican  form  of  government."  This 
was  the  title  of  his  bill.  It  was  denied  then,  as  afterwards  in  Louisiana, 
first,  that  the  state  governments  were  overthrown  ;  and  second,  that  his  plan 
substituted  a  republican  form.  His  plan  was  to  appoint  provisional  brigadier- 
governors,  who  were  to  be  charged  with  the  civil  administration  until  a  state 
government  should  be  recognized.  It  required  an  oath  to  the  Constitution 
to  be  taken,  which  was  very  well;  but  by  whom?  By  one-tenth  of  the 
people.  That  number  would  be  sufficient  to  construct  the  new  state,  whose 
republican  form  of  government  was  already  dictated  to  them  by  the  bill ;  — 
they  "  shall  "  abolish  slavery.  Other  steps  were  to  be  taken,  and  then  the 
new  republican  state  was  to  be  recognized.  In  some  of  its  features  this  bill 
was  an  improvement  upon  the  rickety  establishment  proposed  by  the  Presi 
dent  ;  but  it  was  obnoxious  to  the  same  objection.  It  was  a  usurpation  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people  by  the  Federal  functionaries,  and  it  regarded  the 
old  states  as  forever  destroyed.  The  plans  proposed  were  objectionable, 
because  of  the  mode  of  construction  and  the  kind  of  fabric  to  be  rebuilt. 
As  neither  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  nor  the  Emancipation  act  could 
ever  be  reconciled  with  the  normal  control  of  the  states  over  their  domestic 
institutions,  so  all  oaths  to  sustain  the  same  were  oaths  to  subvert  the  old 
governments,  Federal  and  state.  These  were  the  objections  then  paramount 
in  Congress  and  in  the  states.  After  the  discussion,  Mr.  Davis  abandoned 
his  u  one-tenth,"  and  wisely  substituted  the  majority  idea. 

The  Union  forces  obtained  control  over  a  large  part  of  the  State  of 
Arkansas  in  1863.  This  result  came  from  the  defeat  of  the  Confederates  in 
the  battle  of  Pea  Ridge,  by  General  Curtis,  in  March  of  the  preceding  year. 
The  people  of  the  northern  counties  had  but  little  sympathy  with  those  of 
the  southern  half  of  the  state.  They  possessed  comparatively  few  slaves. 
There  was  soon  developed  among  them  a  repugnance  to  the  secession 


43^  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

movement.  There  was  a  desire  to  be  restored  to  the  protection  of  the 
Union.  But  nothing  was  done  towards  reconstruction  until  the  beginning  of 
the  following  year.  A  spontaneous  movement  in  this  direction  was  made 
by  the  people.  President  Lincoln  wrote  a  letter  to  Major-General  Steele, 
who  was  in  command  at  Little  Rock,  stating  that  he  had  received  petitions 
from  citizens  of  the  state,  asking  that  an  election  might  be  held  for  governor 
and  other  state  officers.  In  this  letter  the  President  stated  the  changes  that 

O 

should  be  made  in  the  constitution  and  laws.  They  were  similar  to  those 
prescribed  for  Louisiana.  Slavery  must  be  abolished,  the  freedmen  must  be 
protected  in  their  rights,  and  idleness  and  vagrancy  should  be  prohibited. 
This  letter  was  dated  Jan.  20,  1864.  The  details  of  the  President's  plan 
as  to  the  mode  of  making  and  counting  election  returns  were  subsequently 
modified,  when  he  ascertained  what  had  already  been  done  by  the  people. 
A  popular  movement  began  earlier.  It  was  pretended  to  be  based  on  the 
Amnesty  proclamation  of  Dec.  8,  1863.  A  state  convention  had  assembled 
on  the  8th  of  January,  1864,  and  inaugurated  a  provisional  government.  The 
convention  claimed  to  represent  forty-two  of  the  fifty-four  counties.  In  fif 
teen  counties  its  delegates  had  been  chosen  with  some  degree  of  regularity,  at 
the  usual  election  precincts.  Other  delegates  were  chosen  in  public  meet 
ings.  A  constitution  adopted  by  this  convention  was  ratified  on  January  19. 
The  vote  cast  was  12,443,  of  which  all  except  266  were  for  ratification.  The 
preamble  to  the  constitution  declared  that  the  entire  action  of  the  convention 
of  the  state,  which  had  assembled  in  the  city  of  Little  Rock  on  the  fourth  day 
of  March,  1861,  "  was,  and  is,  null  and  void,  and  is  not  now,  and  never  has 
been,  binding  and  obligatory  upon  the  people."  Many  legislative  acts  passed 
during  the  ascendancy  of  the  secessionists  were  also  declared  void.  The 
official  acts  of  justices  and  others,  and  the  solemnization  of  marriages  were 
not  affected.  All  debts  contracted  by  the  legislature  in  aid  of  the  Confed 
eracy  were  repudiated. 

In  the  fifth  article,  first  section,  after  the  abolishment  of  slavery,  it  was 
provided  that  no  male  person  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  nor 
female  arrived  at  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  should  be  held  to  serve  any  person 
as  a  servant,  under  any  indenture  or  contract  thereafter  made,  unless  such 
persons  should  enter  into  such  indenture  or  contract  while  in  a  state  of  perfect 
freedom,  and  on  condition  of  a  bonajide  consideration  received,  or  to  be  re 
ceived,  for  their  services  ;  and  further,  that  no  indenture  of  any  negro  or 
mulatto,  thereafter  made  and  executed  out  of  the  state,  or  if  made  in  the 
state,  where  the  term  of  service  would  exceed  one  year,  should  be  of  the  least 
validity,  except  those  given  in  case  of  apprenticeship,  which  was  not  to  be 
for  a  longer  term  than  until  the  apprentice  should  arrive  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
one  years,  if  a  male,  or  the  age  of  eighteen  years,  if  a  female. 

An  election  was  held  on  March  14,  1864,  at  which  a  governor,  Isaac 
Murphy,  and  other  state  officers,  as  well  as  three  congressmen,  were  chosen. 


THE  TEST  OATH  IN  ARKANSAS.  437 

The  constitution  was  ratified ;  and  the  legislature,  which  assembled  April 
25th,  elected  William  M.  Fishback  and  Elisha  Baxter  as  United  States 
Senators.  In  this  manner  the  state  government  was  established  under  Pres 
ident  Lincoln's  policy. 

On  the  I4th  of  April,  1865,  the  legislature  ratified  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  f"he  United  States,  abolishing  slavery.  An  act  was  passed 
disfranchising  all  citizens  who  had  aided  the  rebellion  after  April  18,  1864, 
when  the  loyal  s  tate  government  was  recognized.  This  act  was  protested 
against,  as  unconstitutional,  in  that  it  prescribed  qualifications  for  voters 
that  were  not  in  the  state  constitution.  It  was  not  repealed,  but  it  was 
declared  to  be  unconstitutional  by  the  supreme  court  of  the  state.  The 
counties  in  which  the  Confederates  had  had  control  were  now  brought  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  new  free  state  organization.  Soon,  its  authority  was 
undisputed  throughout  the  state.  On  the  3oth  of  October,  1865,  President 
Johnson,  in  a  di  spatch  to  Governor  Murphy,  pledged  his  sanction  and  sup 
port  to  the  new  state  organization. 

In  Arkansas ,  as  in  other  Southern  states,  there  was  great  destitution  at  the 
close  of  the  war.  In  May,  1865,  the  government  issued  75,097  rations  to  the 
destitute  white  refugees,  who  were  mostly  Union  men  on  their  way  home  ; 
and  46,845  rations  to  freedmen.  This  state  of  things  continued  throughout 
the  year.  Arkansas  suffered  more  than  most  of  her  sister  states  from  domes 
tic  war  among  Kier  citizens.  Governor  Murphy,  in  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  I.  H. 
Leard,  dated  D'ec.  9,  1865,  said  that,  unless  speedily  relieved,  many  persons 
would,  during  fthe  winter,  die  from  the  effects  of  hunger  and  cold.  These 
needy  people  rjesided,  generally,  in  the  western  part  of  the  state.  They 
were  chiefly  the  widows  and  orphans  of  Union  soldiers,  or  the  helpless  connec 


tions  and  depe 
bery,  or  exhat 

The  declar 
that  the  test  o; 
but  it  threw  tir 
white  male  cit 
been  citizens  o 
an  election  for 
which  Miller,: 
Berry,  Republ! 
the  legislature1 

A  public  reflecting  or  convention  of  the  loyal  people  of  Arkansas  was  held 
at  Fort  Smith  *\in  December,  1866.  They  adopted  a  petition  to  Congress  for 
the  abrogation^  of  the  existing  government.  They  asserted  that  the  seces 
sionists  control  led  affairs.  Congress  was  asked  to  "  extend  to  all  loyal  men 
the  right  of  suffrage,  without  distinction  of  color,  except  Indians  not  taxed." 
This  conventic  >n  was  small  and  by  no  means  enthusiastic.  It  was  divided 


idents  of  the  aged  and  infirm,  who  had  been  reduced  by  rob- 
sted  in  means  and  strength,  while  flying  from  their  enemies, 
ition  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  state,  in  December,  1865, 
ith  was  unconstitutional,  greatly  increased  the  popular  vote ; 
e  pronounced  Republicans  into  a  small  minority.  All  free 
zens  of  the  United  States,  twenty-one  years  of  age,  who  had 
:  residents  of  the  state  six  months,  wrere  allowed  to  vote.  At 
state  auditor,  in  August,  1866,  34,407  votes  were  cast,  of 
Unionist,  received  15,241;  Fagan,  Unionist,  12,690;  and 
can,  received  6,476.  Only  five  Republicans  were  elected  to 


438  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

in  sentiment.  It  was  composed  in  part  of  men  of  the  class  who  are  prone 
to  be  "  strong  on  the  strong  side,"  and  who  had  distinguished  themselves 
in  bygone  days  by  their  zeal  in  the  Confederate  cause. 

On  the  2ist  of  January,  1867,  Governor  Murphy  sent  to  the  senate  his 
veto  of  a  bill  "  to  provide  for  the  support  of  wounded  and  disabled  soldiers, 
and  for  the  support  of  indigent  widows  and  children  of  deceased  soldiers, 
and  for  the  relief  of  indigent  families  of  this  state,  and  to  furnish  artificial 
limbs  for  maimed  soldiers,  and  for  other  purposes  named."  This  title  might 
leave  the  impression  that  all  wounded  and  disabled  soldiers,  and  all  indigent 
families  were  to  be  provided  for ;  but  the  first  section  of  the  act  was  more 
specific.  It  appropriated  "'ten  per  centum  of  the  revenue  of  the  state 
annually,  to  constitute  a  fund  for  the  relief  of  destitute,  wourded,  or  disabled 
soldiers,  not  otherwise  provided  for  by  the  United  States  Government,  and 
for  the  support  of  indigent  widows  and  children  of  deceased  soldiers,  not 
otherwise  provided  for  by  the  United  States."  But  the  go\ernor  vetoed  it. 
He  assumed  that  the  legislature  designed  by  this  act  to  honorthe  bravery  and 
devotion,  and  reward  the  sufferings  of  those  who  fought  aga.nst  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  in  the  late  rebellion,  and  also  against  the  present 
state  government.  The  bill,  nevertheless,  was  passed  over  the  veto,  by  a 
vote  of  twenty-one  to  one  in  the  senate ;  and  by  sixty-four  to  seven  in  the 
house  of  representatives. 

Early  in  February,  1867,  the  legislature  passed  "An  Act  to  declare  the 
rights  of  persons  of  African  descent."  This  act  was  by  far  he  most  liberal 
and  just  of  any  passed  by  the  Southern  legislatures,  prior  to  permanent  recon 
struction  under  the  acts  of  Congress.  One  of  its  principal  features  apper 
tained  to  contracts.  Persons  of  color  were  authorized  to  gi\e  evidence  ;  to 
inherit,  purchase,  lease,  sell,  hold,  convey,  and  assign  rea  and  personal 
property ;  to  make  wills  and  testaments ;  and  to  have  full  anl  equal  benefit 
of  the  rights  of  personal  security,  personal  liberty,  and  private  property,  and 
of  all  remedies  and  proceedings  for  the  enforcement  and  protection  of  the 
same,  that  white  persons  then  had.  It  enacted  that  they  shoild  not  be  sub 
ject  to  any  other  or  different  punishments  than  those  prescribed  for  white 
persons  ;  and  that  all  laws  should  be  applicable  to  all  persors,  without  dis 
tinction  of  race  or  color.  It  repealed  all  laws  relating  to  olored  people, 
inconsistent  with  these  provisions.  The  marriage  relation,  wth  all  its  legal 
obligations  and  rights,  was  established  for  the  freed  people.  All  who  had 
lived  together  in  that  relation  prior  to  emancipation  were  b  be  regarded 
lawfully  married,  and  their  children  were  made  legitimate. 

The  difficulty  with  those  opposed  to  this  act  was  the  claus*  giving  to  ne 
groes  and  mtilattoes  the  same  right  to  testify  in  the  courts  that  white  persons 
possessed.  In  other  words,  it  allowed  them  to  testify  in  cas^s  where  white 
persons  alone  were  concerned.  It  subjected  people  of  color  to  the  same 
pains  and  penalties,  and  to  no  others,  for  crimes  and  breacbs  of  the  law, 


REORGANIZATION  IN  ARKANSAS.  439 

that  white  persons  were  subject  to  for  like  ofTense.  It  was  among  the  last  acts 
on  the  subject  passed  by  any  Southern  legislature,  under  the  temporary  re 
construction  which  took  place  on  the  plans  proposed  by  Presidents  Lincoln 
and  Johnson.  It  was  for  that  reason  more  liberal  than  those  which  preceded 
it.  The  leaders  of  public  sentiment  in  Arkansas  had  begun  to  understand  the 
real  temper  of  the  North.  They  appreciated  the  necessity  of  conforming  to 
it  more  nearly  than  was  at  first  deemed  essential.  But  when  they  became 
convinced  that  the  popular  power,  the  power  behind  the  throne,  was  greater 
than  the  throne,  they  began  to  conquer,  one  by  one,  their  prejudices.  It  was 
asserted  that  the  legislature,  by  these  acts,  was  prompted  solely  by  a  desire  to 
legislate  for  the  best  interests  of  the  white  inhabitants  of  the  state.  No  hopeful 
sentiment  about  the  negro  inspired  these  proceedings.  It  was  in  the  same 
spirit  that  the  editor  of  the  leading  journal  of  the  state  called  upon  the 
planters  to  make  "fair,  but  stringent  contracts  with  the  freedmen."  "Are 
they  not,"  said  the  journalist,  "  our  principal  dependence?  Must  we  not  do 
the  best  we  can  with  them,  until  such  time  as  an  increase  of  white  laborers 
shall  come  into  our  state,  and  enable  us  to  do  without  them?  Then  the  hig) 
estimate  which  they  now  place  upon  themselves  will,  by  competition,  be 
brought  down,  and  the  question  with  them  will  not,  as  now,  be  '  who  shall 
I  work  for?'  but,  'who  will  employ  me?"  This  sentiment  manifests  as 
little  acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  political  economy  as  it  does  of  re 
gard  for  the  welfare  of  the  laboring  classes,  white  and  black.  For  the  hope 
of  drawing  white  laborers  to  the  state  in  order  to  reduce  wages  by  competi 
tion  with  negro  labor  was  utterly  fallacious.  Are  not  the  countries  where 
the  attractive  forces  of  immigration  are  the  most  strenuous,  those  in  which 
wages  are  high  ? 

In  February,  1867,  the  legislature  passed  "an  act  of  pardon  and  am 
nesty"  to  all  persons  who,  at  any  time  after  the  sixth  day  of  May,  1861,  and 
before  the  fourth  day  of  July,  1865,  had  committed  any  crime  or  misde 
meanor  against  the  State  of  Arkansas,  rape  only  excepted,  and  who  had  not 
been  convicted  thereof  before  the  passage  of  the  act.  This  act  of  amnesty 
was  intended  for  the  benefit  of  outlaws  on  both  sides,  who  had  committed 
murders  and  other  crimes.  It  was  very  charitable.  During  the  year  1867, 
almost  to  its  close,  Arkansas  had  more  or  less  of  distraction.  The  military 
were  not  hospitably  entertained,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  reprimand  by 
Gen.  E.  O.  C.  Ord,  then  chief  commander,  of  Major  Pierce,  for  his  seizure 
of  a  newspaper  which  had  criticised  the  soldiery.  The  registration  of  voters 
and  the  apportionment  of  delegates  went  on  until  the  convention  wras  called. 
Its  delegates  were  nearly  all  radicals.  Excesses  threatened  to  engulf  the  state. 

In  December,  1867,  the  Democracy  of  Arkansas  are  aroused.  That 
party  declares  for  a  white  man's  government.  The  convention  meets  on  the 
7th  of  January,  1868.  The  state  continues  to  degenerate,  under  bad  admin 
istration,  until  Congress  takes  notice.  The  Poland  Committee  are  sent  to  the 


440  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

rescue.  Then  arises  in  Arkansas  a  man  of  mark  !  The  present  Attorney- 
General  of  the  United  States,  Augustus  H.  Garland  is  the  man.  Whether 
it  is  because  the  writer  has  been  associated  with  this  distinguished  lawyer 
upon  questions  concerning  the  test  oaths,  or  whether  because  of  congenial 
temperament  and  long  friendliness,  it  is  con  amore  that  this  chapter  concludes 
with  a  brief  narrative  of  the  life  and  merits  of  Augustus  H.  Garland.  He 
fills  a  distinguished  place  in  the  history  of  the  State  of  Arkansas,  of  which 
he  has  been  Senator.  He  is  destined  to  fill  a  larger  place  in  the  history  of 
the  country  under  the  new  Administration,  of  which  he  is  the  legal  adviser. 
He  was  born  on  the  eleventh  day  of  June,  1832,  in  Tennessee.  He  was 
educated  at  Bardstown,  Kentucky,  a  famous  seat  of  learning  at  that  time. 
During  his  educational  nonage  he  had  such  influences  as  are  associated  with 
the  names  of  Charles  A.  Wickliffe,  James  Guthrie,  Felix  Grundy,  and 
"Ben."  Harden.  His  habit  of  steady  application,  added  to  the  keenness 
of  his  analysis,  gave  him  rank  along  with  the  best  lawyers  of  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States.  He  is  modest,  unassuming,  sociable,  and  full  of  anecdote 
and  humor.  He  has  a  square  and  solid  frame,  and  although  fifty-two  years 
of  age,  looks  like  a  more  youthful  man.  He  is  evidently  a  man  who  has 
communed  much  with  nature.  He  has  a  frank  simplicity  of  character  which 
is  charming. 

The  incident  which  brought  him  before  the  public  dates  from  a  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  1866.  It  involved  the  consti 
tutionality  of  the  test  oath  in  Congress,  which  the  author  of  this  volume, 
with  the  aid  of  Senator  Garland,  has  recently  had  repealed  in  some  of  its 
most  obnoxious  features.  The  iron-clad  oath  act  was  approved  July  2,  1862. 
It  prescribed  that  before  any  person  could  enter  upon  the  duties  of  any  office 
of  the  United  States  Government,  he  should  take  and  subscribe  that  oath. 
A  supplemental  act  was  passed  in  1865.  Its  provisions  were  extended  to 
attorneys  of  United  States  courts.  As  stated  in  a  former  chapter  of  this 
volume,  Senator  Garland  had  been  an  attorney  and  counselor  of  the  court 
before  the  war,  in  1860.  He  was  forbidden  by  the  act  of  1865  to  practice 
after  the  war  was  over,  having  been  a  Senator  in  the  Confederate  Con 
gress.  Engaged  in  the  discussion  in  the  case  and  others  of  a  similar 
nature  at  the  same  term  of  the  court,  were  such  eminent  lawyers  as  Reverdy 
Johnson,  Matt.  H.  Carpenter,  Attorney-General  Speed,  Henry  Stanbery, 
and  Jeremiah  S.  Black.  But  for  forensic  and  constitutional  acumen,  the 
(then)  young  lawyer  bore  away  the  palm,  in  his  own  case  about  the  test 
oath.  His  argument  was  a  masterly  elucidation  of  the  law,  and  the 
precedents ;  and  although  four  of  the  judges  dissented  from  the  opinion  of 
the  court,  —  which  sustained  three  out  of  four  of  the  points  made  by  Mr. 
Garland, —  they  gave  him  unstinted  praise  for  his  argument.  But  it  was  as 
governor  of  the  State  of  Arkansas  that  Mr.  Garland  won  his  best  trophies. 
Although  he  had  been  a  Bell  and  Everett  elector,  and  had  made  the  fight  for 


ATTORNEY-GENERAL  GARLAND'S  EFFORTS.  44! 

the  Constitution,  the  Union,  and  the  enforcement  of  the  laws, — when  the  seces 
sion  ordinance  of  his  state  was  adopted,  he  went  manfully,  though  mourn 
fully,  with  his  Southern  people.  He  was  chosen  to  the  provisional  Congress 
which  met  at  Montgomery,  Alabama,  in  May,  1861.  He  assisted  in  framing 
the  constitution  of  the  Confederate  States.  This  preliminary  experience 
gave  emphasis  to  his  wise  and  sage  advice  when,  in  1874,  he  overthrew  the 
carpet-bag  rule  in  Arkansas.  It  was  his  effort  before  the  Poland  Committee- 
of  the  House  which  secured  the  majority  report.  When  he  became  gov 
ernor  of  Arkansas,  he  found  the  treasury  bankrupt,  and  the  state  discredited. 
Its  scrip  sold  for  twenty  cents  on  the  dollar.  It  was  not  without  a  dire  con 
test  with  President  and  Congress,  and  the  Republican  party  in  his  state,  that 
all  differences  were  composed,  and  the  state  was  lifted  out  of  the  black 
slough  of  ruin.  Without  opposition,  he  was  preferred  for  the  United  States 
Senate.  As  was  both  natural  and  proper  he  became  a  member  of  the  Judi 
ciary  Committee.  In  the  line  of  his  profession,  with  direct  and  forcible 
language  and  thought,  he  has  defended  in  various  cases  involving  the  new 
Amendments  and  Civil  Rights  bill,  the  rights  of  his  section  under  the  Con 
stitution.  It  has  been  claimed  that  he  is  a  latitudinarian  in  his  construction 
of  the  Constitution,  and  that  he  believes  in  the  preamble  as  the  "blanket 
clause  "  of  the  Constitution.  Although  he  may  not  have  forgotten  some  of 
his  old  Whig  or  Federal  rules  and  ideas,  he  has  acted  with  the  Democratic 
party  in  the  Senate,  and  is  an  active  member  of  the  Cabinet  of  the  Demo 
cratic  Administration.  He  belongs  to  no  ultra  school  in  his  construction  of 
the  Constitution.  He  believes  in  what  he  calls  the  common  sense  interpreta 
tion  of  that  instrument.  He  has  never  failed  to  display  on  every  opportunity 
high  executive  ability,  and  in  his  speeches  and  opinions  he  has  patiently,  and 
with  keenest  observation  and  perspicuity,  pursued  a  clear  and  brilliant  order 
of  argument,  that  has  made  his  logic  synonymous  with  rhetoric  set  on  fire  ; — 
which  is  the  true  definition  of  forensic  eloquence. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 


THE  FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU. 

ACT  CREATING  IT  —  ITS  PURPOSES  AND  SCOPE  —  SUPPLEMENTARY  ACT  —  PRESI 
DENT  JOHNSON'S  VETO  OVERRULED  —  HIS  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  PROPOSED 
LAW  — LARGE  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  THE  BUREAU  — THE  COMMISSIONER 
AND  HIS  SUBORDINATES  —  CHARGES  PREFERRED  AGAINST  THE  COMMIS 
SIONER  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  BY  FERNANDO  WOOD  OF 
NEW-YORK  —  INVESTIGATION  BY  A  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  HOUSE  —  MAJORITY 
AND  MINORITY  REPORTS  —  ERECTION  OF  THE  HOWARD  UNIVERSITY  — THE 
BARRY  FARM  —  DISASTROUS  ATTEMPT  TO  ESTABLISH  A  COLORED  COLONY 
ON  IT  — FAILURE  OF  THE  FREEDMEN'S  BANK  —  DISASTROUS  CLOSE  TO  THE 
WHOLE  SCHEME. 

A  HISTORY  of  reconstruction,  which  failed  to  present  the  leading 
features  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  and  the  character  of  its  opera 
tions,  would  be  incomplete.     The  measure  for  the  creation  of  that 
bureau  originated  during  the  first  session  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Con 
gress.     It  became  a  law  on  the  3d  of  March,  1865.     It  was  entitled,  "An 
Act  to  establish  a  bureau  for  the  relief  of  freedmen  and  refugees."     It  pro 
vided  for  such  bureau  being  established  in  the  War  Department,  to  continue 
"  during  the  present  war  of  rebellion  and  for  one  year  thereafter."     The  con 
trol  of  all  abandoned  lands  in  the  states  recently  in  rebellion,  and  of  all  sub 
jects  relating  to  freedmen  and  to  refugees  from  the  Confederate   States,  or 
from  any  district  of  country  embraced  in  the  territory  covered  by  the  opera 
tions  of  the  army,  was  committed  to  this  bureau  under  regulations  to  be  pre 
scribed  by  its  head  and  to  be  approved  by  the  President.     The  commissioner 
was  to  be  appointed  by  the  President  at  a  salary  of  $3,000  per  annum.     He 
was  required  to  give  bond  in  the  sum  of  $50,000. 

The  Secretary  of  War  was  authorized  by  this  law  to  issue  provisions, 
clothing,  and  fuel  for  the  immediate  and  temporary  shelter  and  supply  of 
destitute  and  suffering  refugees  and  freedmen  and  their  families.  Assistant 
commissioners  were  to  be  appointed  for  each  of  the  ten  insurrectionary  states. 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  BUREAU.  443 

They  were  to  aid  in  the  execution  of  the  act.  Officers  of  the  army  might  be 
assigned  to  duty  under  the  act.  The  assistant  commissioners  were  required 
to  report  quarterly  to  the  commissioner.  He  was  required  to  report  annually 
to  the  President  before  the  commencement  of  each  session  of  Congress. 

The  commissioner  was  authorized,  under  the  direction  of  the  President, 
to  set  apart  for  the  use  of  loyal  refugees  and  freedmen,  such  tracts  of  land 
within  the  insurrectionary  states  as  were  abandoned,  or  to  which  the  United 
States  Government  had  acquired  title  by  confiscation,  sale,  or  otherwise.  Of 
these  lands  a  tract  of  not  more  than  forty  acres  might  be  assigned  to  every 
male  citizen,  whether  refugee  or  freedman  ;  and  the  person  to  whom  it  was 
so  assigned  was  to  be  protected  in  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  land  for  the 
term  of  three  years.  He  was  to  pay  an  annual  rent  not  exceeding  six  per 
centum  of  the  value  of  the  land,  as  appraised  by  the  state  authorities  for  the 
purpose  of  taxation  in  the  year  1860.  In  case  there  was  no  such  appraisal, 
then  the  rental  was  to  be  based  upon  the  estimated  value  of  the  land  in  that 
year.  This  was  to  be  ascertained  in  such  manner  as  the  commissioner 
might  prescribe.  At  the  end  of  such  term,  or  at  any  time  during  the  term, 
the  occupant  of  any  parcel  so  assigned  might  purchase  the  land  and  receive 
such  title  thereto  as  the  United  States  Government  could  convey,  upon  pay 
ing  for  the  land  its  value  as  so  ascertained. 

In  February,  1866,  Congress  passed  an  act  to  amend  the  foregoing  act.  It 
provided  that  this  legislation  should  continue  in  force,  not  for  one  year  after 
the  close  of  the  war,  as  in  the  original  bill,  but  until  otherwise  provided  by 
law.  It  extended  its  operations  to  refugees  and  freedmen  in  all  parts  of  the 
Union.  Provision  was  also  made  for  dividing  the  districts  into  sub-districts, 
and  for  placing  all  persons  connected  with  the  bureau  under  military  author 
ity.  The  Secretary  of  War  was  empowered  to  order  the  issue  of  provi 
sions,  clothing,  fuel,  and  other  supplies,  including  medical  stores  and  trans 
portation,  and  to  afford  such  aid,  medical  or  otherwise,  as  he  might  deem 
needful  for  the  immediate  temporary  shelter  and  supply  of  destitute  and  suf 
fering  refugees  and  freedmen,  their  wives  and  children.  None  were  to  be 
deemed  destitute  and  suffering,  who,  being  able  to  find  employment,  could 
by  proper  exertion,  avoid  such  destitution. 

The  President  was  authorized  to  reserve  from  sale  or  settlement  under  the 
homestead  or  pre-emption  laws,  and  to  set  apart  for  the  freedmen  and  loyal 
refugees,  male  and  female,  unoccupied  lands  in  Florida,  Mississippi,  Ala 
bama,  Louisiana,  and  Arkansas.  They  were  not  to  exceed  in  all,  three  mil 
lions  of  acres  of  good  land.  These  lands  were  to  be  assigned  in  parcels  not 
exceeding  forty  acres  each  to  the  loyal  refugees  and  freedmen,  who  were  to 
be  protected  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  same.  They  were  to  pay  an  annual 
rent,  to  be  agreed  upon  between  them  and  the  commissioners  of  the  Freed- 
men's  Bureau.  At  their  option  the  renters  might  purchase  the  lands  at  a 
price  to  be  agreed  on.  The  occupants  of  land,  under  General  Sherman's 


444  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

field  order,  dated  at  Savannah,  Jan.  16,  1865,  were  to  be  protected  in  the  en 
joyment  of  the  same  for  three  years,  against  the  claim  of  the  former  owners. 
Suitable  buildings  were  to  be  erected  by  the  bureau  for  asylums  and  schools. 
It  was  made  the  duty  of  the  President  to  extend  military  protection  to  the 
freedmen  in  all  cases  in  which  any  state  or  local  law  or  regulation  denied 
them  equal  rights  with  white  people.  It  was  made  a  misdemeanor,  punish 
able  by  fine  and  imprisonment,  for  any  person,  under  color  of  any  state  or 
local  law,  to  subject  any  freedman  to  the  deprivation  of  any  civil  right  se 
cured  to  white  persons.  The  officers  of  the  bureau  were  authorized  to  take 
jurisdiction  of  all  such  cases. 

This  supplementary  act  was  met  by  the  veto  of  President  Johnson,  dated 
Feb.  19,  1866 ;  but  it  was  passed  by  both  houses  two  days  subsequently, 
notwithstanding  the  objections  of  the  President,  by  more  than  the  requisite 
two-thirds  majority. 

Preliminary  to  the  statement  of  his  constitutional  objections  to  the  bill, 
the  President  suggested  that  there  was  no  immediate  necessity  for  the  meas 
ure,  inasmuch  as  the  original  act  had  not  expired  ;  as  that  act  conferred  ex 
tensive  powers ;  and  as  further  experience  of  its  effects  was  needed  as  a 
guide  to  additional  legislation.  The  President  expressed  the  strong  desire 
which  he  shared  with  Congress,  to  secure  to  the  freedmen  the  full  enjoy 
ment  of  their  freedom  and  property  ;  but  he  suggested  that  the  bill  contained 
provisions  which  were,  in  his  opinion,  at  war  with  the  Constitution.  It  pro 
posed  to  establish,  by  authority  of  Congress,  military  jurisdiction  over  all 
parts  of  the  United  States  containing  refugees  and  freedmen,  and  to  extend 
the  existing  temporary  jurisdiction  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  with  greatly 
enlarged  powers,  over  those  states  in  which  the  ordinary  course  of  judicial 
proceedings  had  been  interrupted  by  the  rebellion.  In  those  eleven  states 
the  bill  subjected  any  white  person  who  might  be  charged  with  depriving 
a  freedman  of  civil  rights  or  immunities,  to  imprisonment  or  fine,  or  both, 
without,  however,  defining  the  "  civil  rights  or  immunities"  that  were  thus 
to  be  secured  to  the  freedmen  by  military  law.  This  military  jurisdiction 
TT-as  also  extended  -to  all  questions  that  might  arise  respecting  contracts. 
The  agent  who  was  thus  to  exercise  the  office  of  a  military  judge  might  be 
a  stranger  entirely  ignorant  of  the  local  laws  and  exposed  to  errors  of  judg 
ment.  This  exercise  of  power  over  which  there  was  no  legal  supervision, 
by  a  vast  number  of  agents  would  necessarily  be  attended  by  acts  of  caprice, 
injustice  and  passion.  The  trials  originating  under  the  law  were  to  take 
place  without  the  intervention  of  a  jury  and  without  any  fixed  rules  of  law 
or  evidence  ;  and  the  punishment  would  be,  not  what  the  law  declared,  but 
that  which  a  court-martial  might  think  proper.  From  these  arbitrary  tri 
bunals  there  was  no  appeal  provided,  no  writ  of  error  to  any  of  the  consti 
tutional  courts  of  the  country. 

The  President  also  objected  to  the  bill  because  it  had  no  limitation  in 


CONSTITUTIONAL  OBJECTIONS.  445  ' 

point  of  time,  but  would  form  a  part  of  the  permanent  legislation  of  the 
country.  He  could  not  reconcile  such  a  system  of  military  jurisdiction 
with  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  that  "  no  person  shall  be  held  to 
answer  for  a  capital  or  otherwise  infamous  crime,  unless  upon  a  present 
ment  or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury,  except  in  cases  arising  in  the  land 
and  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia  when  in  actual  service  in  time  of  war 
or  public  danger,"  and  that  "  in  all  criminal  prosecutions  the  accused  shall 
enjoy  the  right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the 
state  or  district  wherein  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed."  This  bill 
proposed,  he  said,  to  set  aside  all  the  safeguards  which  experience  and  wis 
dom  had  established  as  securities  for  the  protection  of  the  innocent,  the  pun 
ishment  of  the  guilty,  and  the  equal  administration  of  justice.  Such  a 
measure  could  only  be  justified  while  war  continued.  There  was  at  that 
time  no  part  of  the  country  in  which  the  authority  of  the  United  States  was 
disputed,  and  it  was  impolitic,  as  well  as  unconstitutional,  to  disturb  com 
merce,  credit,  and  industry  by  declaring  to  the  world  that  the  United  States 
was  still  in  a  condition  of  civil  war.  He  argued,  that  although,  during  the 
war  many  refugees  and  freedmen  had  received  support  from  the  government, 
it  had  never  been  intended  that  they  should  thenceforth  be  fed,  clothed,  edu 
cated,  and  sheltered  at  public  expense.  O,n  the  contrary,  the  idea  on  which 
the  slaves  were  assisted  to  freedom  was,  that  on  becoming  free,  they  would 
be  a  self-sustaining  population.  Any  legislation  that  implied  that  they  were 
not  expected  to  attain  a  self-sustaining  condition,  must  necessarily  have  a 
tendency  injurious  alike  to  their  character  and  their  prospects. 

The  President  also  pointed  out,  in  further  detail,  that  the  power  conferred 
by  this  bill  of  appointing  agents  and  clerks  for  every  county  and  parish  in 
the  late  insurrectionarv  states  would  involve  an  immense  addition  to  the 
President's  patronage.  The  annual  expenditure  was  $11,750,000  under  the 
original  bill.  It  would  probably  be  doubled  by  the  one  under  consideration. 
The  maintenance  of  military  rule  in  the  South  \vould  require  the  presence  of 
troops  there.  Thus,  large  appropriations  would  become  necessary  to  enforce 
military  jurisdiction.  In  addition  to  these  objections,  the  President  pointed 
out  that  the  fifth  section  of  the  bill  proposed  to  take  away  land  from  its  former 
owners  without  any  legal  proceedings  being  first  had.  This  was  contrary  to 
that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  declares  that  no  person  shall  be 
deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law.  He  urged 
other  objections  to  the  bill,  based  on  considerations  of  the  permanent  wel 
fare  of  the  freedmen  themselves  and  of  the  general  good  of  society.  It  is 
difficult,  indeed,  to  imagine  how  a  candid  mind  could  resist  the  force  of  the 
President's  objections  to  the  bill,  founded  on  its  infractions  of  the  Constitu 
tion  and  its  invasions  of  the  liberty  of  the  people  ;  but  nevertheless  his 
objections  were  overruled,  and  the  bill  became  a  law.  Various  other  amend 
ments  to  the  law  were  passed  from  time  to  time,  and  large  appropriations  to 


446  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

defray  the  expenses  of  maintaining  the  bureau  and  its  wards,  the  freedmert 
and  refugees,  were  made  at  every  session  for  several  years  afterwards.  Thus, 
in  the  army  appropriation  bill  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1867,  about  seven 
million  dollars  was  appropriated  for  those  purposes.  This  included  these 
items  :  For  commissary  stores,  $3,106,250 ;  for  transportation,  $1,320,000  ; 
for  clothing  for  distribution,  $1,170,000;  for  repairs  and  rent  of  school 
houses  and  asylums,  $500,000  ;  for  medical  department,  $500,000  ;  for  sala 
ries  of  assistant  and  sub-assistant  commissioners,  $147,500 ;  for  salaries  of 
clerks,  $82,800.  Like  appropriations  were  also  made  on  the  army  appro 
priation  bill  for  the  succeeding  fiscal  year,  some  of  the  items  being  largely 
increased,  as,  for  instance,  the  item  of  fuel  from  $15,900  to  $200,000.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  appropriation  for  commissary  stores  was  reduced  from 
$3,106,250  to  $1,500,000.  This  shows  that  the  number  of  dependent  freed- 
men  had  very  largely  diminished  within  the  year.  The  item  for  transporta 
tion  was  reduced  from  $1,320,000  to  $800,000.  Inasmuch,  however,  as 
nearly  every  negro  and  refugee  who  desired  to  return  to  his  original  home 
must  have  done  so  long  before  this  item  was  available,  it  is  not  easy  to  see 
how  it  could  have  been  honestly  expended. 

Rumors  reflecting  upon  the  administration  of  the  bureau  had  indeed 
been  afloat  ever  since  its  organization.  The  commissioner,  Gen.  Oliver 
O.  Howard,  was  a  man  more  remarkable  for  piety  than  for  practical  talent. 
He  did  not  possess  high  administrative  abilities.  He  had  not  had  the  ex 
perience  and  training  which  would  qualify  him  for  the  efficient  discharge 
of  these  peculiar  duties.  His  assistant  commissioners  and  the  subordinate 
bureau  agents  were,  like  himself,  appointed  almost  without  exception  from 
officers  of  the  army ;  and  some  of  them  acquired  the  reputation  of  making 
use  of  their  opportunities  more  for  the  sake  of  promoting  their  own  for 
tunes  than  for  aiding  and  protecting  the  colored  people.  Many  of  them  were 
said  to  have  acquired  landed  estates  in  the  localities  where  they  were  sta 
tioned,  and  to  have  cultivated  them  cheaply  and  profitably  with  the  negro 
labor  which  they  could  largely  control.  Others  were  reported  as  being  in 
the  receipt  of  large  allowances  from  planters  for  aid  rendered  in  preventing 
the  negro  hands  from  abandoning  field  work.  Many  others  ran  for  political 
positions.  By  the  help  of  the  colored  vote  they  were  elected  to  Congress, 
to  the  state  legislatures,  and  to  various  state  and  county  offices.  All  this 
was  calculated  to  excite,  and  did  excite,  a  very  bitter  feeling  of  distrust  and 
animosity  against  the  agents  of  the  bureau  in  all  the  Southern  States,  where 
the  scornful  term  of  "  carpet-bagger  "  was  applied  to  them  in  common  with 
other  political  adventurers  from  the  North. 

The  commissioner  himself  was  far  from  escaping  suspicion.  He  under 
went  severe  criticism,  particularly  in  connection  with  the  establishment,  in  a 
suburb  of  Washington,  of  a  college  for  the  higher  education  of  colored  youth, 
called  after  himself,  the  Howard  University.  Attention  was  attracted  to 


THE  BUREAU  INVESTIGATED.  447 

certain  large  real  estate  transactions  in  and  near  the  city  of  Washington. 
Dissatisfaction  at  length  found  a  mouth-piece  and  sponsor  in  the  person  of  a 
distinguished  member  of  Congress  from  New -York — Fernando  Wood.  On 
the  6th  of  April,  1870,  Mr.  Wood  rose  in  his  place  in  the  House  and  offered 
a  resolution  charging,  "on  information  and  belief,"  that  Gen.  O.  O.  Howard, 
Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Refugees,  Freedmen,  and  Abandoned  Lands, 
had  been  guilty  of  malversation  and  dereliction  of  duty,  and  calling  for  an 
investigation. 

The  allegations  against  General  Howard  were  formulated  under  twelve 
distinct  heads.  The  most  important  of  them  were  :  that  he  had,  improperly, 
and  without  authority  of  law,  used  more  than  $500,000  of  the  funds  of  the 
bureau  for  the  purchase  of  lands  and  the  erection  of  buildings  for  the 
Howard  University ;  that  portions  of  such  lands  had  been  disposed  of  im 
properly  to  persons  of  his  own  family  and  officers  of  his  own  staff;  that 
bonds  of  the  First  Congregational  Church,  of  Washington,  had  been  received 
by  him  in  payment  for  a  portion  of  these  lands  so  disposed  of, —  which 
bonds  had  not  been  redeemed  or  paid  ;  that  the  buildings  had  been  erected 
of  unfit  material,  furnished  by  the  American  Building  Block  Company,  in 
which  company  himself,  his  brother,  and  other  officers  of  the  bureau  were 
interested  as  stockholders ;  that  the  contracts  for  the  construction  of  these 
buildings  required  this  material  to  be  used,  thus  preventing  competition; 
that  the  material  was  so  unsuitable  and  worthless  that  parts  of  the  building 
had  fallen  down  in  consequence  of  its  use,  and  that  other  parts  had  been  re 
paired  and  rebuilt,  at  an  expense  of  several  thousand  dollars ;  that  lumber 
belonging  to  the  government  had  been  dishonestly  used  and  appropriated  by 
this  patent  brick  company ;  that  the  commissioner  had  paid  from  the  funds 
of  the  bureau  over  $40,000  in  aid  of  the  construction  of  the  First  Presby 
terian  (Congregational)  Church  in  Washington,  taking  the  church  bonds  in 
return,  which  bonds  he  had  either  returned  in  his  accounts  as  cash  on  hand, 
or  had  sent  South  for  the  purposes  of  the  bureau ;  that  he  had,  also,  ad 
vanced  a  large  sum  from  the  funds  of  the  bureau  to  the  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association,  of  Washington,  taking  the  bonds  of  that  association 
in  payment,  which  bonds  had  been  sent  to  Tennessee  to  help  the  freedmen's 
schools  in  that  state  ;  that  he  had  been  interested  in  the  purchase  of  a  farm 
of  over  three  hundred  acres,  near  the  insane  asylum,  for  which  the  public 
funds  and  other  property  had  been  used ;  that  buildings  were  constructed 
thereon  of  lumber  belonging  to  the  government,  which  buildings  were  then 
let  or  sold  to  freedmen  at  exorbitant  prices  ;  and  that  himself  and  his  brother, 
Charles  Howard,  were  personally  interested  in  the  transaction  as  a  private 
business  speculation ;  that  he  had  exercised  his  office  with  extravagance 
and  negligence,  and  in  the  interest  of  his  family  and  intimate  friends ;  and 
finally,  that  he  was  one  of  a  "ring,"  known  as  the  "  Freedmen's  Bureau 
Ring,"  which,  through  connections  and  influences  with  the  freedmen's  savings 


448  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

banks,  and  freedmen's  schools  of  the  South,  favored  the  political  machinery 
of  a  party  in  the  Southern  States  ;  and  that  the  official  authority  and  power 
of  his  bureau  had  been  exercised  for  personal  and  political  profit. 

Mr.  Wood's  original  proposition  was,  that  the  investigation  of  the  charges 
made  by  him  should  be  carried  on  by  the  Committee  on  Freedmen's  Affairs. 
This  was  composed  wholly  of  Republican  members  ;  but  it  was  thought 
more  appropriate  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  Committee  on  Education  and 
Labor.  It  accordingly  took  that  direction.  This  committee  was  composed 
of  eight  Republicans  and  two  Democrats,  its  chairman  being  Samuel  M. 
Newell,  of  Tennessee.  The  magnitude  of  the  investigation  to  be  entered 
upon  was  manifest  from  the  fact  that  the  latest  annual  report  of  the  bureau 
showed  the  total  expenditure  from  its  organization  down  to  that  date  (August, 
1879),  to  have  been,  in  cash,  over  eleven  million  dollars ;  or,  including  sub 
sistence  and  stores,  over  thirteen  and  a  half  millions.  This  was  exclusive 
of  the  value  of  abandoned  lands  and  houses  used  by  the  bureau.  It  was 
also  exclusive  of  some  three  million  acres  of  public  lands. 

The  investigation  occupied  several  months.  It  attracted  the  attention  of 
the  press  and  country  to  an  unusual  degree.  Both  sides  were  represented 
by  counsel.  It  was  claimed  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution  that,  through 
the  partisan  rulings  of  the  majority  of  the  committee,  much  relevant  and  im 
portant  testimony  was  excluded.  Nevertheless,  a  sufficient  array  of  admitted 
or  incontrovertible  facts  was  brought  forward  to  enable  the  minority  of  the 
committee  to  claim  that  many,  if  not  all,  of  the  charges  brought  forward  by  Mr. 
Wood  were  fully  substantiated  by  the  testimony.  The  report  of  the  majority 
of  the  committee,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  complete  exculpation  of  the  com 
missioner,  and  a  eulogy  of  himself  and  his  associates.  The  testimony,  how 
ever,  has  gone  into  the  permanent  records  of  the  country.  It  will,  in  the  days 
to  come,  confirm  the  objection  made  by  the  author  and  others  in  Congress,  to 
such  an  agency  as  was  created  by  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  It  furnishes  valu 
able  materials  for  the  student,  or  historian,  of  the  reconstruction  period  of 
American  history ;  and  to  the  philosopher,  it  will  illustrate  the  unfitness  of 
the  Federal  Government,  or  its  officers,  to  become  the  administrators  of  an 
eleemosynary  fund.  It  will  show  that  under  a  written  organic  law,  of 
granted  powers  with  strict  construction,  the  last  place  for  charitable  trusts, 
is  our  Federal  system  and  its  agencies.  It  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this  work 
to  enter  into  the  minute  details  developed  in  this  investigation.  A  brief 
glance  at  some  pf  the  more  salient  points  will  show  the  good  sense,  and  good 
law  which  inspired  President  Johnson's  veto.  The  first  charge  —  that  of 
using  half  a  million  dollars  of  the  funds  of  the  bureau  for  purchasing  the 
lands  and  erecting  the  buildings  of  the  Howard  University  —  was  not  dis 
puted  ;  but  the  act  itself  was  justified  and  commended  by  the  majority  of  the 
committee.  And  yet,  it  was  certainly  an  expenditure  of  very  questionable 
propriety.  It  was  made  at  a  time  when  the  most  imperative  needs  of  the 


BUREAU  MANAGEMENT.  449 

homeless  and  naked  freedmen  demanded  shelter  and  plain,  warm 
clothing,  and  when  their  children  could  not  obtain  even  the  first  rudiments 
of  education.  The  Freedmen's  Bureau  was  created  for  the  avowed  purpose 
of  providing  for  the  wants  of  the  more  destitute  freedmen  and  refugees. 
It  was  a  gross  and  palpable  misapplication  of  its  fund  to  apply  any  por 
tion  of  it,  and  particularly  so  large  a  portion,  to  the  erection  of  pretentious 
university  buildings.  No  such  provision  had  ever  been  made  by  the  United 
States  Government  for  the  education  of  other  classes  of  citizens,  except  in  the 
case  of  army  and  navy  officers.  The  misapplication  of  the  freedmen's 
fund  to  this  use  was  as  gross  as  would  be  that  of  any  other  charity  fund, 
when  applied  to  the  erection  of  palatial  school  buildings. 

The  purchase  of  several  squares  of  land  in  the  city  of  Washington  by 
General  Howard,  Senator  Pomeroy,  of  Kansas,  and  John  R.  Evans,  of  Wash 
ington,  trustees  of  the  Educational  fund,  which  was  a  branch  of  the  Freed 
men's  Bureau,  and  the  erection  thereon  of  seventy-six  tenement-houses  for 
occupation  by  colored  families,  was  another  rather  unfortunate  exercise  of 
judgment  in  the  use  of  the  fund  The  aggregate  cost  of  this  enterprise  was 
about  $124,000  The  reason  assigned  for  it  was,  that  there  were  33,000  des 
titute  freedmen  in  the  city  who  were  about  to  be  turned  out  of  the  old  con 
demned  barracks  and  other  temporary  buildings  which  they  had  been  occu 
pying  ;  but  the  accommodations  thus  provided  would  only  furnish  shelter  to 
some  1,300  persons.  The  remainder  of  the  33,000  persons  were  literally  left 
44  out  in  the  cold."  Besides,  the  bureau  had  at  its  disposal  3,000,000  acres 
of  the  public  lands.  On  these  it  should  have  settled  the  freedmen.  Ample 
funds  to  transport  them  were  at  their  disposal.  Would  not  that  have 
been  a  wiser  course  than  trying  to  establish  these  poor  colored  people  at 
Washington?  It  was,  therefore,  quite  natural  that  the  minority  of  the  com 
mittee,  at  least,  should  regard  the  real  estate  speculation  with  some  suspicion. 
The  majority  of  the  committee,  however,  failed  to  see  anything  in  it  that  was 
not  proper  and  prudent. 

Another  real  estate  transaction  of  much  larger  proportions,  is  of  still  more 
questionable  propriety.  It  received  attention.  This  was  the  purchase  of 
what  was  known  as  the  Barry  Farm.  This  farm  was  a  tract  of  about  three 
hundred  and  seventy-five  acres  adjacent  to  the  government  insane  asylum.  It 
was  within  a  mile  from  the  city  limits.  The  motive  assigned  for  the  acquire 
ment  and  settlement  of  this  property  was  a  philanthropic  one.  The  plan 
was,  that  the  farm  might  be  cut  up  into  small  homesteads  for  colored  families, 
which  they  could  acquire  in  ownership  on  the  installment  principle.  It 
was  accordingly  mapped  out  into  small  holdings.  These  were  sold  on  a  gradu 
ated  scale  of  prices,  ranging  from  $125  to  $300  per  acre.  These  prices  were 
made  so  as  to  cover,  as  it  was  said,  the  original  cost,  which  was  $52,000.  The 
chief  quartermaster  of  the  bureau  furnished  to  the  acquirer  of  each  of  these  lots, 
lumber  to  the  value  of  $70,  for  the  construction  of  a  dwelling-house.  They 


450  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

were,  like  the  houses  in  Sir  Thomas  More's  Utopia,  to  be  built  in  all  their 
appointments  according  to  a  uniform  plan.  Thus  the  little  colony  was 
started.  For  a  year  or  two  the  plan  promised  to  be  a  moderate  success  ;  but 
the  negroes  soon  became  discouraged.  The  land  consisted  for  the  most  part 
of  gravelly,  precipitous  hill-sides,  of  no  possible  value  for  farming  or  gardening 
purposes.  Employment  at  fair  wages  was  hard  to  be  got  in  the  city  or  neigh 
borhood.  The  payment  of  the  installments  became  irregular,  and  when  it 
ceased,  the  payments  already  made  were  forfeited.  The  dwellings  began  to 
fall  into  dilapidation  and  abandonment ;  and  up  to  the  present  day,  the  pro 
gress  of  decay,  poverty,  and  ruin  in  this  ill-fated  negro  colony  has  been  regular 
and  uninterrupted.  It  was  this  enterprise  on  the  part  of  General  Howard 
and  his  associates  that  was  the  subject  of  the  most  unfavorable  comments  by 
the  public  at  large.  It  was  very  severely  condemned  by  the  minority  of  the 
committee ;  but  the  majority  of  the  committee  saw  in  it  nothing  deserving  of 
censure  or  disapproval. 

The  operations  of  the  bureau  and  its  officials  in  the  Southern  States  were 
not  examined,  in  this  investigation.  If  they  had  been,  the  developments 
might  have  been  even  more  disgraceful  than  those  which  were  actually 
brought  to  light.  The  impression  made  on  the  public  mind  by  the  exposure 
of  these  facts  was  unfavorable  to  the  bureau,  its  management,  and  its  officers. 
Soon  afterwards  General  Howard  was  assigned  to  army  duties.  The  Freed- 
men's  Bureau  ceased  to  exist.  The  failure  of  the  Freedmen's  Bank,  in  which 
the  same  loose  business  methods  were  practiced,  and  in  the  management  of 
which  many  of  the  officials  of  the  bureau  were  more  or  less  connected,  gave 
the  coup-de-grdce  to  this  politico-philanthropic  scheme.  It  had  its  origin 
chiefly  in  sectional  bitterness  and  pseudo  humanity.  Its  main  motive  was 
a  desire  to  perpetuate  the  existence  of  the  Republican  party ;  and  its  close 
was  appropriately  attended  by  an  ignominious  failure  of  its  political  de 
signs,  and  by  the  spoliation  of  the  poor,  industrious  colored  people  of  the 
South  and  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  whose  hoardings,  to  the  amount  of 
several  million  dollars,  had  been  entrusted  to  the  Freedmen's  Savings  Bankv 
and  its  branches  in  the  Southern  States. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 


KU-KLUX  OUTRAGES. 

RESISTANCE  TO  RECONSTRUCTION  MEASURES -INTIMIDATION  AND  TERRORISM  IN 
THE  SOUTH  —  PREVALENCE  OF  LAWLESSNESS  —  SECRET  SOCIETIES  —  THE 
KU-KLUX  KLAN— VIRGINIA  AN  EXCEPTION— GENERAL  FORREST'S  TESTIMONY 
—  STRENGTH  OF  THE  KU-KLUX  ORGANIZATION  — ITS  MODE  OF  OPERATIONS  — 
HISTORY  OF  OUTRAGES  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA— THE  KIRK-BERGEN  REBELLION 
-DISREGARD  OF  WRITS  OF  HABEAS  CORPUS  — IMPEACHMENT  OF  GOVERNOR 
HOLDEN  — PARTISAN  AND  INCOMPETENT  JUDGES  — INCENDIARY  ADDRESS  OF 
REPUBLICAN  MEMBERS  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE  — CAUSES  OF  THE  LAWLESS 
NESS. 

ONE  of  the  capital  offenses  of  the  Republican  party  during  the 
first  few  years  after  the  war,  consisted  in  the  attempt  to  rule  the 
South  and  their  elections  by  the  military  power.  They  forgot 
the  teaching  of  Mirabeau,  that  bayonets  are  too  often  the  only 
remedy  applied  to  the  convulsions  of  the  oppressed,  and  that  they  never  estab 
lish  anything  except  the  peace  of  terror  and  the  silence  of  despotism.  Those 
who  have  no  faith  in  the  discriminating  judgment  of  the  people  naturally 
regard  them  as  the  furious  herd  to  be  held  in  check.  They  forget  that  they 
are  always  quiet  and  moderate  when  free,  and  violent  and  unruly  only  under 
those  governments  which  systematically  debase  them,  in  order  to  have  a  pre 
text  to  despise  them.  This  teaching  of  Mirabeau,  among  other  civil  lessons, 
had  no  place  in  the  ethics  of  Congress.  There  was  nothing  of  wisdom 
spoken  to  justify  the  obnoxious  and  forceful  laws  which  kindled  anew  the 
coals  of  contention.  Even  members  of  Congress,  after  the  war  was  over, 
cried  out  for  an  army  again,  to  march  against  the  vanquished  Southern 
people.  Philippics  were  hurled,  based  upon  thousand-tongued  rumor,  against 
secret  organizations  in  the  South.  The  Ku-Klux  secrecy  was  the  pretext  for 
these  cries.  No  one  undertook  or  undertakes  to  justify  the  Ku-Klux  system 
of  repression.  There  are  reasons  higher  than  ordinary  reasons  why  efforts 
should  have  been  made  to  remove  the  causes  or  the  occasion  of  such  secret 
associations  rather  than  to  remove  their  effect.  The  conduct  of  the  oppressed 
Southern  people  aroused  the  spirit  of  retaliation  in  the  minds  of  those  who 


452  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

after  the  war  sought  to  establish  martial  law,  and  illegally  to*  suspend  habeas 
corpus,  and  who  forgot  that  when  laws  are  violative  of  the  Constitution  they 
lead  to  rapine  and  murder.  More  heinous  is  crime  when  done  under  the 
guise  of  law.  They  forgot  what  Mackintosh  had  said,  that  the  massacres  of 
war,  the  murders  committed  by  the  sword  of  justice  and  the  solemnities 
which  invest  them  are  disguised  ;  but  the  wild  justice  of  the  people  is  a 
naked  and  undisguised  horror.  Its  wildest  motion  awakens  all  our  indigna 
tion,  while  murder  and  rapine,  if  arrayed  in  the  gorgeous  disguise  of  acts  of 
state,  stalk  abroad  with  impunity.  Force  is  the  antithesis  of  freedom.  The 
bills  introduced  in  Congress  in  1871  and  thereafter  were  bills  of  force. 
They  were  in  restraint  of  liberty.  According  to  Buckle,  all  such  bills  are 
inimical  to  civilization.  They  are  in  flagrant  derogation  of  the  idea,  that 
society  can  prosper  without  being  watched  by  the  state  at  every  turn.  The 
municipal  spirit  of  our  laws  was  set  aside  by  the  force  bill  and  other  meas 
ures  in  connection  with  the  legislation  of  1870,  '71  and  '72.  Such  laws  were 
the  very  draff  and  offal  of  force  and  change,  when  force  and  change  were 
accounted  the  predecessors  of  events,  and  when  barbarism  was  the  conse 
quent  condition.  The  famous  force  bill,  in  April,  1871 ,  was  a  partisan  move 
ment.  It  might  as  well  have  been  at  once  a  bill  to  appoint  a  dictator.  It 
•was  copied  after  the  policy  of  the  Marats  and  Robespierres,  when  they  thun 
dered  their  red  evangel  in  the  club  and  in  the  assembly.  It  was  based  on 
the  clamor  about  assassinations  in  the  South.  It  was  intended  to  arouse  the 
turbulence  which  was  begotten,  in  order  to  be  charged  upon  the  opposite 
party.  After  many  investigations  by  the  House  this  vindictive  legislation 
was  proceeding  without  substantial  proof.  Such  legislation  had  failed  for 
six  years  to  do  anything  else  than  to  squander  revenue  and  create  debts,  to 
feed  vampires  and  organize  janissaries,  to  organize  negro  militia  and  military 
governments.  The  same  spirit  made  amendments  to  the  Constitution  and 
had  them  adopted  under  duress.  It  exercised  clemency  only  to  add  rene 
gades  to  its  recruits.  The  fomenters  of  these  troubles  were  not  satisfied  with 
the  bills  on  the  statute-book,  which  were  strong  enough  to  outrage  princi 
ple  and  threaten  the  citizen.  They  were  not  satisfied  with  the  pains  and 
penalties  of  such  bills,  but  they  kept  public  opinion  continually  aroused  by 
attempted  Federal  legislation  to  make  a  discontented  South,  out  of  which 
might  arise  their  future  accession  to  power  and  continuance  in  its  enjoy 
ment. 

It  would  have  been  contrary  to  the  experience  of  mankind,  and  an  excep 
tion  to  all  the  teachings  of  history,  if  the  social  and  political  revolution 
which  the  results  of  the  war  had  imposed  on  the  states  then  recently  in 
surgent  had  gone  into  operation  peacefully,  harmoniously,  and  successfully. 
It  was  impossible  for  such  to  be  the  case.  The  transition  was  from  a  state 
in  which  the  superiority  and  domination  of  the  white  race  over  the  col- 
•ored  race  existed  unquestioned  for  centuries.  It  was  to  a  condition  of  things 


RISE  OF  THE  KU-KLUX  KLAN. 


453 


in  which  the  most  prominent  whites  were  disfranchised  and  deprived  of 
the  right  to  hold  public  offices.  Their  late  slaves  were  enfranchised,  and 
the  judicial  and  other  offices  were  largely  filled  by  dishonest  and  unfriendly 
strangers  from  the  North.  What  was  worse  still,  many  of  these  places 
were  filled  by  ignorant  and  brutal  negroes.  The  transition  was  too  sudden 
and  violent.  It  was  hard  to  submit  to  it  quietly.  No  people,  least  of  all 
such  a  proud  and  intolerant  people  as  that  of  the  South,  could  see  their 
local  governments  transferred  from  their  own  hands  into  the  hands  of  their 
former  slaves  without  being  goaded  into  violent  resistance.  This  resistance 
took  the  form,  in  most  of  the  Southern  States,  not  of  armed  opposition  to  the 
Federal  or  the  state  governments,  but  of  organized  intimidation  and  terrorism. 
It  was  directed  against  the  colored  people  and  against  their  white  allies  and 
leaders.  It  made  an  objective  point  of  the  agents  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau, 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  school  teachers,  —  all  adventurers  from  the 
North,  or  men  who  had,  in  quest  of  fortune,  immigrated  into  these  states. 
All  of  these  classes  were  regarded  as  public  or  private  enemies.  They  were 
designated  by  the  opprobrious  title  of  u  carpet-baggers."  The  history  of 
these  outrages  fills  many  volumes  of  reports  made  by  joint,  and  separate 
committees  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress.  It  is  from  these  volumes, 
from  reports  of  military  commanders  in  the  South,  and  from  other  official 
documents,  that  the  following  epitome,  exhibiting  the  lawlessness  that  pre 
vailed  in  the  Southern  States  during  the  second  decade  between  1865  and 
1875,  is  made.  These  documents  are  so  full  of  the  details  of  crime  and  vio 
lence,  and  are  so  voluminous,  that  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  select  from 
them,  or  to  convey  a  correct  idea  of  their  revelations. 

Very  soon  after  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  almost  as  soon  as  the  Recon 
struction  acts  were  begun  to  be  put  in  operation,  secret  societies  were  organ 
ized  in  various  states  of  the  South.  Their  object,  either  secret  or  avowed, 
was  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  political  rights  by  the  negroes.  These  soci 
eties  took  various  names,  such  as  "The  Brotherhood,"  "The  Pale  Faces," 
"The  Invisible  Empire,"  "  The  Knights  of  the  White  Camellia"  ;  but  all 
these  were  finally  merged  into,  or  compounded  with,  the  formidable  and 
dreaded  society  denominated  the  "Ku-Klux  Klan."  Their  acts  of  lawless 
ness  and  cruelty  have  passed  into  local  and  congressional  history  as  "Ku- 
Klux  outrages." 

The  State  of  Virginia  was  a  remarkable  exception  to  the  other  states  in 
its  exemption  from  crimes  of  this  character ;  while  the  two  neighboring 
states  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee  furnished,  perhaps,  more  material 
for  investigation  into  Ku-Klux  outrages  than  any  other  portion  of  the  South. 
This  barbarous  and  bloodthirsty  organization  is  said  to  have  originated  in 
1866. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Ku-Klux  Klan  was  organized  at  first  only  to 
scare  the  superstitious  blacks.  It  is  true  that  it  arose  out  of  the  frivolities  of 


454  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

some  young  Tennesseans.  Horrid  tales  were  told  to  frighten  the  negroes 
from  roaming  about  and  pilfering.  The  testimony  before  the  committee  on 
that  subject,  of  which  the  writer  was  a  member,  showed  that  they  daily  vis 
ited  houses  and  talked  their  foolish  talk;  that  they  were  "mummicking 
about," — whatever  that  means.  They  carried  a  flesh  bag  in  the  shape  of  a 
heart,  and  went  about  "hollering  for  fried  nigger  meat."  One  of  the  Klan, 
for  instance,  represented  that  he  had  been  killed  six  years  before  at  Manassas, 
"and  since  then  some  one  has  built  a  turnpike  over  his  grave  and  he  has  to 
scratch  like  h — 1  to  get  up  through  the  gravel."  One  Ku-Klux  carried  an 
India  rubber  stomach,  to  startle  a  negro  by  swallowing  pailfuls  of  water. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  political  reasons  had  their  influence  after  the  Ku-Klux 
were  under  way.  They  were  a  disfranchised  body  and  did  not  intend  to 
submit  to  such  laws.  Is  not  here  the  secret  of  their  beginning?  They  justi 
fied  their  orgies,  their  names,  and  their  conduct  on  political  grounds.  The 
worse  the  government,  the  worse  the  outrages.  The  South  was  sparsely 
populated.  Public  opinion,  consequent  on  subjugation  and  the  breach  of 
Federal  faith,  was  much  inflamed.  Their  rulers  gave  them  an  example  in 
lawlessness,  and  produced  the  temptation  to  do  in  the  dark  what  could  not  be 
found  out. 

Such,  at  least,  is  the  account  given  by  the  Confederate  general,  Forrest. 
In  his  testimony  before  the  joint  select  committee  of  Congress,  in  iS7i-'72, 
he  stated  that  he  had  joined  one  of  these  secret  societies.  His  purpose  was 
to  suppress  it,  in  the  interest  of  peace.  This  "order"  bore  the  title  of 
"  Pale  Faces  "  ;  but  it  was  only  designated  in  its  construction  and  by-laws 
by  the  sign  of  the  three  stars.  It  was  organized  for  self-protection.  It  was 
intended  as  an  offset  against  the  "  Loyal  League,"  into  which  colored  men 
were  inducted  by  their  white  local  leaders.  General  Forrest  explained  the 
reasons  and  objects  of  these  secret  organizations  among  the  whites  of  the 
South  to  be  the  insecurity  felt  by  the  Southern  people  ;  the  fact  that  North 
ern  men  were  coming  there  and  forming  these  Loyal  Leagues  ;  and  the  fact 
that  night  meetings  were  being  held  by  negroes  who  were  becoming  very  in 
solent,  and  by  whom  many  outrages,  particularly  against  virtuous  women, 
were  being  perpetrated,  without  legal  punishment.  There  was  a  great  deal 
of  insecurity  in  the  country,  he  said,  and  the  organization  that  he  spoke  of 
was  gotten  up  to  protect  the  weak.  It  had  no  political  motive. 

This  may  not  have  been  the  original  design  of  these  secret,  oath-bound 
organizations.  Certain  it  is,  that  they  soon  came  to  be  made  use  of,  in  the 
most  arbitrary,  cruel,  and  shocking  manner,  for  the  furtherance  of  political 
ends,  and  for  the  crushing  out  of  Republicanism  in  the  Southern  States  ;  to 
which  party  the  colored  people  were  almost  unanimously  attached.  The 
crimes  and  outrages  narrated  in  these  pages  had  their  origin,  almost  ex 
clusively,  in  political  causes,  —  in  the  effort  on  the  part  of  the  whites  to 
set  at  naught  the  rights  of  suffrage  guaranteed  to  the  negroes,  and  to  exclude 


KU-KLUX  METHODS.  455 

from  Federal,  state,  county,  and  local  offices  all  persons  whose  reliance  for 
election  to  such  offices  was  mainly,  if  not  altogether,  on  negro  votes. 

General  Forrest  estimated  the  strength  of  the  Ku-Klux  organization  in 
Tennessee  at  40,000.  He  expressed  the  belief  that  it  was  still  stronger  in 
other  states.  The  members  were  sworn  to  secrecy,  under  the  penalty  of 
death  for  breach  of  fidelity.  Their  ordinary  mode  of  operation  —  as  gath 
ered  from  the  mass  of  evidence  —  was  to  patrol  the  country  at  night.  They 
went  well  armed  and  mounted.  They  wore  long  white  gowns.  They 
masked  their  faces.  Their  appearance  terrified  the  timid  and  superstitious 
negroes  who  happened  to  see  them  as  they  rode  past,  and  who  then  re 
garded  them  as  ghostly  riders.  But  most  frequently  they  surrounded  and 
broke  into  the  cabins  of  the  negroes ;  frightened  and  maltreated  the  in 
mates  ;  warned  them  of  future  vengeance  ;  and  probably  carried  off  some 
obnoxious  negro,  or  "carpet-bagger,'*  whose  fate  it  was  to  be  riddled  with 
murderous  bullets,  hung  to  the  limb  of  a  tree,  or  mercilessly  whipped  and 
tortured,  for  some  offense,  real  or  imaginary,  but  generally  because  he  was 
active  in  politics  or  in  negro  schools  or  churches. 

The  Ku-Klux  operations  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina  were  described  to 
a  congressional  committee  by  one  who  had  been  a  member,  but  who  had 
shrunk  from  participation  in  the  crimes  to  which  he  had  pledged  his  counte 
nance  and  support  when  he  joined  the  order.  This  was  a  member  of  the 
North  Carolina  bar.  His  name  is  Mr.  James  Boyd.  He  was  United  States 
District  Attorney  for  the  western  district  of  the  state  —  having  joined  the 
Republican  party  and  become  one  of  its  conspicuous  local  leaders.  Mr. 
Boyd  described  the  ceremonies  of  initiation.  The  oath-bound  members  were 
to  obey  all  lawful  orders  of  the  organization, — the  qualification  "lawful" 
being  applied,  not  to  Federal  or  state  authority,  but  to  the  authority  of  the 
order.  The  meetings  were  held  in  the  woods  or  other  secret  places.  The 
manner  of  making  nocturnal  raids  was  prescribed  by  the  regulations.  No 
raid  was  to  be  made,  no  person  punished,  no  execution  done,  unless  it  had 
been  first  unanimously  agreed  upon  at  a  regular  meeting  of  "  a  camp"  of 
the  Klan.  It  must  have  been  duly  approved  by  the  officers  and  chief  of  the 
Klan.  They  had  secret  signals  and  watchwords.  When  punishment  was 
to  be  inflicted  on  a  victim,  the  raiders  came,  not  from  his  vicinity,  but  from 
a  distant  locality,  so  as  to  avoid  recognition.  The  penalty  for  disclosing  the 
secrets  of  the  order  was  death  ;  and  the  obligations  extended  to  giving  false 
testimony  before  the  courts,  if  necessary,  and  if  on  a  jury,  to  acquitting  mem 
bers  on  trial. 

According  to  the  majority  report  of  the  Senate  select  committee,  of  March 
10,  1871,  the  Ku-Klux  associations,  by  whatever  name  known,  were  insti 
tuted  in  North  Carolina  in  1867  or  1868.  This  lawless  combination,  there 
fore,  was  coeval  with  the  Reconstruction  acts  and  their  enforcement.  The 
inference  is  that  those  acts,  by  their  revolutionary  character,  formed  the 


456  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

chief  provocation  to  Ku-Klux  atrocities.  The  people  of  North  Carolina 
had  submitted,  with  what  degree  of  resignation  they  could  command,  to  the 
abolition  of  slavery,  to  the  overthrow  of  their  state  government,  and  to  the 
temporary  rule  of  military  power ;  but  the  grant  of  universal  suffrage  to 
their  former  slaves,  accompanied  by  the  disfranchisement  of  the  most  intel 
ligent,  wealthy,  and  influential  citizens,  was  more  than  they  could  patiently 
bear.  Nothing  could  have  been  more  hopeless  than  the  idea  of  successful 
resistance  ;  and  the  resistance  offered  was  at  once  foolish  and  criminal.  Still 
it  was  natural  under  the  circumstances  ;  and  should  have  been  anticipated  and 
avoided  by  the  ruling  element  in  Congress.  There  were  indeed  circumstances 
in  the  condition  of  the  South  which  pointed  strongly  to  the  necessity  of 
giving  universal  suffrage  to  the  negroes.  As  a  rule,  no  one  class  of  people 
can  be  safely  entrusted  with  the  exclusive  powers  of  legislation  and  govern 
ment  over  other  classes ;  and  the  temper  of  the  Southern  white  people  to 
wards  their  former  slaves,  just  emancipated  by  the  conquering  arms  of  the 
Union,  was  not  such  as  to  make  that  people  an  exception  to  that  rule.  But 
where  is  found  any  reason  for  the  subjugation  of  the  whites  to  the  blacks  ? 
Will  not  its  attempt  forever  remain  a  stain  upon  the  wisdom  and  fairness  of 
the  then  dominant  power  in  Congress  ?  If,  while  conferring  universal  suffrage 
upon  the  blacks,  the  leading  whites  had  been  left  in  free  and  undisturbed 
possession  of  political  rights,  and  had  been  invited  and  encouraged  to  take 
an  active  part  in  the  reconstruction,  without  being  required  to  recant  former 
political  views  and  party  associations, —  the  success  of  reconstruction  meas 
ures  would  have  been  promoted  ;  the  rights  of  the  negroes  better  secured  ; 
good  feeling  substituted  for  a  sense  of  bitterness  and  injustice ;  and  an 
orderly  and  honest  administration  of  state  affairs  would  have  existed  instead 
of  the  carnival  of  fraud,  robbery,  and  violence  that  actually  followed  the  en 
forcement  of  the  Reconstruction  acts. 

The  report  of  the  Senate  committee  of  the  loth  of  March,  1871,  before 
referred  to,  recites  a  startling  number  of  Ku-Klux  outrages.  They  embrace 
whipping,  mutilation,  and  murder.  These  cruelties  took  place  in  North 
Carolina,  between  December,  1868,  and  December,  1870.  The  report  gives 
some  of  the  horrifying  details.  One  case  is  that  of  a  man  named  Outlaw. 
His  only  crime  was  that  he  was  the  head  of  a  Loyal  League  in  Alamance 
County.  For  this  offense  he  was  condemned,  sentenced,  and  executed  by 
the  Ku-Klux  organization,  on  Feb.  9,  1870.  He  was  taken  from  his  house 
about  midnight  by  a  band  of  from  eighty  to  a  hundred  men,  and  hung  upon 
an  elm  tree,  not  far  from  the  court-house  door.  No  active  measures  were 
taken  to  arrest  and  punish  the  murderers.  In  this  same  county,  a  simpleton, 
who  was  supposed  to  have  seen  some  of  his  neighbors  who  had  taken  part  in 
the  murder  of  Outlaw,  was  drowned  in  the  mill-pond.  Two  other  negroes 
were  shot,  but  not  killed,  and  fifty  were  whipped.  In  Craven  County,  two 
men  were  shot,  but  not  killed.  In  Caswell  County,  a  member  of  the  state 


'v'tllfevv'  .''•"'(;'.;!»<  •  •'  '•' 


RECONSTRUCTION  STATESMEN 


DISORDERS  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA,  457 

senate,  named  J.  W.  Stevens,  was  murdered,  and  two  men  (one  white  and 
one  colored)  were  whipped.  In  Catawba  County,  twenty-two  men  were 
whipped,  and  one  shot,  but  not  killed.  In  other  counties  there  was  a  like 
record  of  whipping  and  assassination.  An  internal  revenue  agent  related 
that,  one  day,  while  traveling  in  Orange  County  (in  which  six  or  more  men 
were  hung  and  five  or  six  whipped) ,  he  came  upon  the  bodies  of  two  col 
ored  men  hanging  on  a  tree.  Some  women  and  children,  near  by,  were  cry 
ing,  and  begged  him  to  read  the  paper  that  was  attached  to  these  bodies. 
With  some  apprehensions  lest  he  might  be  suspected  of  sympathy  with  these 
people,  he  climbed  the  tree  and  read  the  paper.  The  words  written  on  it 
were:  "Barn-burners  and  Women-insulters. —  K.  K.  K." 

This  reference  to  barn-burners  is  explained  by  testimony  given  on  the 
other  side  of  the  question.  It  referred  to  the  fact,  as  alleged,  that  the  negroes, 
acting  under  the  evil  instigation  of  some  of  their  white  leaders,  had  also  re 
sorted,  on  their  part,  to  acts  of  violence  and  intimidation,  in  the  form,  par 
ticularly,  of  setting  fire  to  the  barns  of  their  white  neighbors.  One  witness 
testified  to  seeing  five  barns  thus  on  fire  at  the  same  time  in  Wake  County, 
and  also  to  the  fact  that  negroes  were  stationed  in  ambush  to  shoot  down 
men  who  should  attempt  to  extinguish  these  fires.  Insults  and  outrages  by 
black  men  against  white  men  were  also  put  forward  as  a  justification  of 
Ku-Klux  proceedings  ;  but  such  charges  were  more  easily  made  than  proved. 
Negroes  who  had  voted  with  the  Democrats  were  in  turn  whipped  and  mal 
treated  by  men  of  their  own  race.  These  mutual  acts  of  violence  and  crime 
indicate  the  terribly  excited  and  lawless  condition  of  society  in  these  states 
during  this  unhappy  transition  period. 

Governor  Holden  was  then  governor  of  North  Carolina.  He  was  at 
the  same  time  president  of  the  Loyal  League  of  the  state.  His  administra 
tion  was  marked  by  extreme  partisanship,  and  by  undue  leanings  toward  the 
colored  people  and  against  the  whites.  For  these  unnatural  partialities  he 
has  since  atoned,  by  a  reformation  of  his  political  opinions  and  a  change  of  his 
partisan  ties.  Numerous  instances  were  given  of  negroes  being  whipped  by 
negro  mobs  for  voting  the  Democratic  ticket.  In  one  case,  where  the  per 
petrators  were  indicted,  tried,  and  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  one  and 
two  months,  they  were  pardoned  in  a  few  days  by  Governor  Holden  ;  and  it 
was  said  that  the  governor,  in  his  report  to  the  legislature,  reported  pardons, 
almost  exclusively  of  negroes  convicted  of  outrages,  in  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  cases.  In  fact,  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  complaint  on  the  part 
of  the  whites  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina  was  that  the  negro  perpetrators 
of  crime,  even  if  they  were  arrested,  always  escaped  punishment,  either  by 
the  connivance  of  the  courts,  or  by  the  clemency  of  the  governor. 

The    disorders    in  the  state   became  so  flagrant   that  Governor  Holden 
issued  proclamations  in  March  and  July,   1870.     In  them  he  declared  the 
counties  of  Alamance  and  Caswell  in  a  state  of  insurrection.     He  author- 
so 


458  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ized  two  citizens  of  Tennessee  —  George  W.  Kirk  and  George  B.  Bergen 
—  to  raise  a  regiment  of  militia  for  the  suppression  of  the  insurrectionary 
proceedings.  Both  these  men  are  said  to  have  been  of  notoriously  bad 
character ;  and,  as  they  were  not  citizens  of  North  Carolina,  but  were 
temporarily  residing  in  Washington  City,  their  appointment  as  colonel  and 
lieutenant-colonel  of  the  state  militia  was  at  once  unconstitutional  and  im 
politic.  They  raised  a  force  of  about  six  hundred  men.  With  them  they 
operated  in  the  two  counties  named.  They  arrested  a  large  number  of 
prominent  citizens.  These  arrests  caused  great  excitement  throughout  the 
state.  An  address  was  issued  by  the  Democratic  leaders,  charging  that  this 
armed  movement  had  been  set  on  foot  by  Governor  Holden  in  order,  by  in 
timidation  of  voters,  to  control  the  pending  election. 

"  The  persons  so  deprived  of  their  liberty  were  subjected  to  the  grossest  in 
dignities,  brutalities,  and  deprivations,  in  cells  of  common  jails.  Writs  of 
habeas  corpus  in  their  behalf  were  issued  by  Chief  Justice  Pearson,  of  the 
state  supreme  court ;  but  Colonel  Kirk  refused  to  obey  them.  Thereupon 
the  chief  justice  addressed  a  communication  on  the  subject  to  the  governor. 

Governor  Holden,  however,  took  the  responsibility  of  violating  that  clause 
of  the  Federal  Constitution  which  declares  that, — "The  privilege  of  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended."  Colonel  Kirk,  on  his  part,  treated 
the  action  of  the  judiciary  with  brutal  contempt.  He  declared  to  the  deputy- 
marshal  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  those  papers ;  that  they  were 
"played  out,"  and  that  he  obeyed  the  orders  of  the  governor.  Finally 
Judge  Pearson,  shrinking  from  what  he  regarded  as  a  futile  and  dangerous 
attempt  to  enforce  obedience  to  the  writ,  contented  himself  with  directing 
the  writ  and  a  copy  of  his  opinion  to  be  exhibited  to  the  governor,  remark 
ing  that  if  the  governor  obeyed  the  writ,  well,  if  not,  he  (the  judge)  had 
discharged  his  duty ;  that  the  power  of  the  judiciary  was  exhausted ;  and 
that  the  responsibility  rested  on  the  executive.  In  this  course,  he  said  that 
he  was  following  the  example  of  Chief  Justice  Taney  in  Merriman's  case, 
in  1861.  There,  under  somewhat  similar  circumstances,  General  George 
Cadwalader,  then  in  command  of  Fort  McHenry,  refused  to  obey  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  issued  by  the  chief  justice  for  the  production  of  a  prisoner, 
then  confined  in  the  fort,  on  a  charge  of  treason.  In  that  case  Judge  Taney 
ruled  that  Congress  alone  —  and  not  the  President  —  could  suspend  the 
privilege  of  the  writ,  but  he  also  declared  that  he  had  exercised  all  the 
power  conferred  upon  him  by  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  ;  that  that  power 
had  been  resisted  by  a  force  too  strong  for  him  to  overcome  ;  and  that  the 
responsibility  rested  with  the  President  of  the  United  States,  who  was  to  be 
furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court. 

In  this  North  Carolina  case,  however,  in  which  the  governor  refused  to 
obey  the  mandate  of  the  supreme  court  of  his  own  state,  he  did  not  carry 
his  recusancy  and  contempt  of  the  judiciary  so  far  as  to  refuse  obedience  to 


GOVERNOR  HOLDEN'S  COURSE.  459 

the  mandate  of  the  United  States  District  Judge.  This  Judge,  George  W. 
Brooks,  issued  a  writ  in  behalf  of  the  same  prisoners.  Governor  Holden 
made  an  earnest  appeal  to  President  Grant  to  sustain  him  in  the  matter ;  but 
the  President  referred  the  case  to  the  Attorney-General,  Mr.  Ackerman. 
The  Attorney-General  decided  that  the  district  judge  could  not  refuse  to 
issue  the  writ.  He  advised  the  state  authorities  to  yield  to  the  United  States 
judiciary.  In  order  to  retain  control  of  such  of  the  prisoners  as  had  not  ap 
plied  to  Judge  Brooks,  Governor  Holden  directed  Kirk  to  obey  the  writs  is 
sued  by  Judge  Pearson  ;  so  that  the  parties  could  be  held  for  trial  by  the  civil 
courts.  Nothing  came  of  this,  however.  All  the  prisoners  escaped,  though 
some  of  them  may  have  been  guilty  of  the  outrages  charged  against  them. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  attempt  of  the  governor  to  substitute  mili 
tary  rule,  or  his  own  rule,  for  law,  defeated  the  ends  of  justice.  The  guilty 
.as  well  as  the  innocent  victims  of  his  arbitrary  measures  became  heroes  and 
martyrs  to  the  cause  of  liberty.  They  were  shielded  by  the  sympathies  of 
the  great  mass  of  the  white  race. 

As  a  consequence  of  these  despotic  and  unconstitutional  proceedings, — 
Governor  Holden  was  impeached  by  the  house  of  representatives  of  his 
state.  He  was  tried  by  the  senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  impeachment.  He 
was  convicted  by  that  body.  One  or  more  of  his  Republican  friends  voted 
against  him  on  some  of  the  counts.  He  was  sentenced  to  the  forfeiture  of 
his  position  as  governor  and  to  perpetual  disfranchisement.  Thus  ended 
what  was  known  in  the  state  as  the  Kirk-Bergen  rebellion. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  motives  and  sentiments  which  inspired  Governor 
Holden  in  his  conduct  in  the  matter,  let  us  refer  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Rev.  J.  Brenton  Smith,  before  the  select  committee  of  the  Senate,  in  Febru 
ary,  1871.  Mr.  Smith  was  an  Episcopal  clergyman.  He  had  been  sent  to 
North  Carolina,  from  New-York,  by  an  association  connected  with  the 
Church.  He  was  engaged  in  the  propagation  of  religion  and  education 
among  the  colored  people.  Under  the  auspices  of  this  association,  he  had 
founded  a  normal  school  at  Raleigh,  and  had  become  its  principal.  He  was 
.a  man  of  superior  intelligence.  He  took  a  lively  interest  in  passing  events. 
He  was  a  Republican  in  politics  ;  but  when  he  had  become  acquainted  with 
the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  state,  his  sympathies  were  given  to  the  liberal 
side  of  that  party  as  against  the  radicals.  He  said  that  he  had  talked  with 
Governor  Holden  about  the  great  injury  done  to  the  state  by  his  proclamation 
of  insurrection,  inasmuch  as  it  kept  persons  from  coming  into  the  state  to  buy 
land.  The  governor,  he  said,  was  very  much  excited  about  the  recall  of 
the  United  States  troops  from  the  state,  having  received  no  assurance  that 
other  troops  would  be  sent  to  supply  their  place.  Mr.  Smith  remarked  to 
him:  "Governor,  what  distresses  me  is  that  you  should  put  these  colored 
men  up  for  Congress  and  for  responsible  offices.  I  notice  in  my  work  among 
Ihese  people  that  there  is  great  moral  injury  done  to  them  throughout  the 


460  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

state.  The  effect  is  very  bad.  It  unsettles  them.  They  do  not  seem  to  be 
disposed  to  go  to  regular  labor,  because  they  are  looking  to  political  prefer 
ment."  The  governor  remarked  in  response,  that  as  Congress  had  seen  fit 
to  pass  a  law  by  which  colored  men  were  admitted  to  seats  in  the  state  legis 
lature,  he  wanted  Congress  to  have  some  of  the  same  medicine.  He,  there 
fore,  was  in  favor  of  sending  colored  men  to  Congress.  He  also  said  that  if 
the  United  States  Government  did  not  send  troops  into  the  state,  he  should 
arm  the  colored  people.  He  boasted  that  he  could  control,  by  his  word, 
eighty  thousand  men.  He  went  on  to  say  that,  in  his  opinion,  General 
Grant  would  hold  the  government  of  the  United  States.  No  matter  how  the 
election  in  1872  turned  out,  General  Grant  would  rule.  He  (Governor  Hoi- 
den)  desired  him  to  be  emperor,  and  desired  to  see  his  son  succeed  him  as 
emperor.  It  may  be  added  that  Governor  Holden  was  not  singular  in  the 
wish  thus  expressed.  The  same  sentiment  was  not  uncommon  in  North 
Carolina  among  Governor  Holden's  adherents.  He  was  not  the  only  one 
who  gave  expression  to  it.  Time  had  been  when  such  words  would  have 
been  considered  treasonable;  but  at  this  period  (iSyo-'yi)  they  were  re 
garded  as  the  shibboleth  of  the  highest  type  of  loyalty,  in  the  South  at 
least. 

It  would  be  wearisome  and  sickening  to  attempt  to  give  any  detailed  ac 
count  of  these  Ku-Klux  brutalities.  It  might  be  supposed  that  the  disturbed 
districts  were  those  in  which  the  largest  negro  population  was  found.  Such, 
however,  was  not  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  the  counties  in  which  the  most 
of  such  outrages  occurred  were  those  where  the  white  population  largely  ex 
ceeded  the  colored  population.  In  Alamance  County,  for  instance,  where, 
in  1870  the  white  population  numbered  8,234  and  the  colored  population 
3,640,  there  were  fifty-four  such  outrages  reported  ;  whereas,  in  the  county  of 
Craven,  where  the  colored  population  was  one-third  larger  than  the  white 
population,  there  were  only  two  outrages  ;  and  in  the  county  of  Caswell  where 
the  proportions  were  about  equal,  there  were  but  three  outrages.  Of  the 
ninety  counties  in  North  Carolina,  sixteen  contained  more  colored  citizens 
than  white,  and  of  these  sixteen,  there  were  only  three  (Caswell,  Craven, 
and  Jones,)  in  which  Ku-Klux  outrages  were  reported.  It  is  vain  to  pre 
tend,  therefore,  that  there  existed  a  necessity  in  these  counties  for  the  formation 
of  lawless  secret  associations,  bound  together  by  oaths,  in  order  to  protect 
society  against  a  feeble  minority  of  ignorant  negroes. 

It  is  impossible  to  pass  over  the  outrage  committed  upon  Mr.  James  M. 
Justice.  He  was  an  attorney-at-law,  and  a  man  of  respectability.  He  re 
sided  at  Rutherfordton,  in  Rutherford  County.  He  was  a  Republican  and  a 
member  of  the  state  legislature.  As  an  attorney,  he  aided  in  the  prosecu 
tion  of  members  of  the  Ku-Klux  Klan.  He  had  given  offense  to  the  order. 
In  one  of  their  secret  conclaves  they  decreed  that  he  must  be  put  to  death. 
His  execution  was  ordered.  The  raid  took  place  on  the  night  of  Sunday, 


SPECIAL  OUTRAGES.  461 

June  n,  1871.  Eighty  or  more  men,  in  the  usual  disguise,  marched  into 
the  village.  They  had  left  their  horses  on  the  outskirts.  They  surrounded 
his  house.  It  was  raining  very  hard.  They  broke  open  the  door  of  his 
dwelling  with  an  axe,  and  several  of  them  entered.  Hearing  the  noise,  Mr. 
Justice  rose  out  of  bed  and  attempted  to  go  to  his  gun,  but  was  intercepted. 
They  lighted  matches  and  found  their  victim  before  them  with  only  his  night 
shirt  on.  They  ordered  him  to  come  out  of  the  house.  He  begged  to  be 
let  alone.  They  informed  him  that  his  time  had  come.  They  dragged  him 
out  of  his  house.  When  he  resisted,  he  was  struck  with  a  big  pistol  and 
fell  down  insensible.  After  he  came  to  consciousness,  he  was  forced  to  walk 
several  hundred  yards  into  the  woods.  There  the  fiends  held  a  council  over 
him.  Although  he  had  screamed  loudly  for  help  when  taken  out  of  his 
house,  and  although  the  neighborhood  was  populous,  none  of  the  neighbors 
dared  to  come  to  his  relief.  In  the  woods  he  pleaded  hard  for  his  life,  but 
the  general  voice  was  for  killing  him.  Finally,  through  the  influence  of  the 
leader,  who  seemed  to  possess  more  intelligence  and  humanity  than  his  fol 
lowers,  they  contented  themselves  by  extorting  promises  from  Mr.  Justice. 
His  life  was  spared,  and  he  was  permitted  to  return  home  without  further 
suffering  at  their  hands.  His  only  offence  had  been  his  politics  and  his 
prosecution  of  the  Ku-Klux  for  their  crimes.  In  his  testimony,  Mr.  Jus 
tice  recited  many  instances  of  outrages  that  had  been  perpetrated  in  Ruther 
ford,  Cleveland,  Lincoln,  and  Gaston  counties.  He  could  not  enumerate 
them,  but  could  only  say  that  there  were  more  than  one  hundred  of  such 
outrages.  Many  men  had  come  to  him  and  exhibited  the  marks  of  lashes 
on  their  backs  and  the  wounds  received  from  guns  and  pistol  shots.  Mr. 
Justice  could  not  remember  all  the  whippings  he  had  heard  of;  but  they 
were  very  numerous.  Among  them  was  that  of  an  old  white  man,  John 
Nodine,  a  soldier  of  the  War  of  1812,  and  a  citizen  of  the  state,  who  had 
been  whipped  for  voting  the  Republican  ticket. 

But  perhaps  the  most  hideous  case  of  whipping  recited  by  Mr.  Justice 
wras  that  of  Aaron  Biggerstaff.  He  was  an  old,  white-haired  gentleman. 
A  large  gang  of  raiders  armed  with  guns  and  pistols  broke  into  his  house  by 
night.  They  pulled  the  old  man  out  of  his  bed.  They  dragged  him  into 
the  road  in  front  of  his  house.  There  they  beat  him  with  hickories  and 
kicked  him  with  their  feet  for  a  long  time,  and  then  brought  him  back  into 
the  house.  This  barbarous  punishment  was  inflicted  upon  him  merely  on 
account  of  his  politics,  and  because  of  his  harboring  another  man  named 
McGahey,  who  had  retaliated  for  an  outrage  committed  on  his  family,  and 
had  shot  one  of  the  gang  connected  with  it.  Twenty  of  the  members  of  the 
band  who  had  thus  maltreated  Biggerstaff  were  arrested  and  brought  be 
fore  Judge  Logan,  of  the  state  circuit  court ;  but  BiggerstafF,  his  son  and 
daughter,  while  on  their  way  to  Charlotte  to  prosecute  the  prisoners,  were 
attacked  and  treated  with  great  cruelty  ;  and  the  old  man  would  have  been 


462  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

hanged  by  the  gang  had  it  not  been  that  the  son,  who  recognized  several  of 
them,  had  managed  to  escape.  Being  afraid  of  the  consequences  if  they 
proceeded  further  in  their  outrages,  they  ordered  Biggerstaff  and  his  daugh 
ter  to  return  home  and  not  to  say  anything  about  what  had  happened  to  them. 
Thirty  men  were  subsequently  tried  before  the  United  States  Circuit  Court 
for  participation  in  the  first  raid  upon  Biggerstaff.  Sixteen  of  them  were 
found  guilty,  and  eight  not  guilty.  As  to  the  other  six  cases,  a  nolle  prosequi 
was  entered.  For  participation  in  the  second  raid  upon  Biggerstaff  and  his 
family,  while  they  were  on  the  road  to  Charlotte,  five  men  were  arraigned. 
Three  pleaded  guilty,  while  a  nolle  prosequi  was  entered  for  the  other  two. 

As  before  remarked,  the  outrages  were  not  all  confined  to  the  one  side 
in  politics.  There  were  also  great  outrages  upon  the  other  side.  The 
military  terrorism  exercised  by  the  militia  under  Kirk  created  a  very  bitter 
feeling  of  irritation  and  alarm.  Another  great  cause  of  trouble  was  the  par 
tisan  conduct  of  some  of  the  state  judges.  Judge  Logan,  who  was  elected  in 
1868,  was  one  of  these  judges,  against  whom  the  bitterest  feeling  existed. 
He  was  an  unscrupulous  partisan  and  an  incompetent  judge.  A  petition  for 
his  removal  was  signed  by  all  the  leading  lawyers  of  the  North  Carolina  bar 
practicing  in  Charlotte.  The  resolutions  contained  in  the  petition  declared 
that  Judge  Logan  was  not  qualified  either  by  learning  or  capacity  to  dis 
charge  the  duties  of  his  office ;  that,  by  reason  of  his  incompetency,  the 
course  of  justice  had  been  impeded  ;  that  in  many  cases  justice  had  been  vir 
tually  denied  ;  and  that  public  confidence  in  the  efficiency  of  the  government 
and  of  the  laws  had  been  impaired. 

Witnesses  of  great  respectability,  when  questioned  in  regard  to  the  causes 
of  the  trouble  in  the  South,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  principal  cause 
was  bad  government.  They  said  that,  up  to  the  time  when  these  recon 
structed  governments  and  constitutions  were  imposed  upon  the  people,  no 
such  crimes  had  been  committed  ;  that  from  the  close  of  the  war  up  to  1867, 
affairs  had  been  perfectly  quiet  in  the  South  ;  and  that  the  disturbances 
were  to  be  attributed  to  bad  government,  corrupt  and  incompetent  officials, 
and  evil  advice  to  the  ignorant  negro  population. 

An  incendiary  address,  signed  by  the  Republican  members  of  the  legisla 
ture  of  North'  Carolina  in  1868,  was  referred  to  by  some  of  the  witnesses  as 
having  been  productive  of  much  mischief.  One  of  the  paragraphs  of  this 
address  was  in  the  following  words  : 

"  Did  it  never  occur  to  you,  ye  gentlemen  of  property,  education,  and 
character  —  to  you,  ye  men,  and  especially  ye  women,  who  never  received 
anything  from  these  colored  people  but  services,  kindness,  and  protection, 
—  did  it  never  occur  to  you  that  these  same  people,  who  are  so  very  bad, 
will  not  be  willing  to  sleep  in  the  cold  when  your  houses  are  denied  them 
merely  because  they  will  not  vote  as  you  do ;  that  they  may  not  be  will 
ing  to  starve  while  they  are  willing  to  work  for  bread?  Did  it  never 
occur  to  you  that  revenge,  which  is  so  sweet  to  you,  may  be  as  sweet  to 


CAUSES  OF  DISCONTENT.  463 

them  ?  Hear  us,  if  nothing  else  you  will  hear :  did  it  never  occur  to  you 
that  if  you  kill  their  children  with  hunger,  they  will  kill  your  children  with 
fear?  Did  it  never  occur  that  if  you  good  people  maliciously  determine  that 
they  shall  have  no  shelter,  they  may  determine  that  you  shall  have  no 
shelter?" 

It  was  stated  as  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  most  intelligent  witnesses  (Mr. 
Durham)  that  barn-burnings,  rapes,  and  other  crimes  on  the  part  of  the 
negroes  were  the  legitimate  fruits  and  consequences  of  this  paper  signed  by 
the  Republican  members  of  the  legislature.  Mr.  Durham  also  explained 
that  the  influence  exercised  over  the  colored  people  by  the  Northern  adven 
turers  or  "  carpet-baggers  "  who  settled  or  squatted  there  at  the  close  of  the 
war,  was  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Northern  people  were  regarded  as  the 
liberators  of  the  colored  race  ;  while  the  idea  was  studiously  inculcated 
among  them  that  the  white  people  of  the  South  were  their  enemies.  Mr. 
Durham  regarded  the  Reconstruction  acts  as  unwarranted  and  oppressive, 
because  they  disfranchised  a  large  number  of  the  best  men  of  the  Southern 
country,  and  because  the  most  ignorant  and  superstitious  negro  was  given 
the  privilege  of  holding  the  highest  offices  of  trust  and  profit,  while  such 
men  as  Governor  Graham,  Governor  Bragg,  and  others  in  whom  the  whole 
people  of  North  Carolina  had  confidence,  were  disfranchised.  The  intelli 
gent  people  of  the  South,  he  said,  could  not  look  upon  such  treatment  in  any 
other  light  than  as  being  hostile  to  their  best  interests. 

The  crimes  and  disturbances  of  which  the  State  of  North  Carolina  was 
the  theatre  during  the  few  years  of  the  reconstruction  period,  are  set  out  in 
painful  detail  in  the  various  reports  of  congressional  committees ;  but  a 
sufficient  review  of  them  has  been  given  here  to  present  a  fair  and  correct 
idea  of  the  condition  of  society  there  and  elsewhere  at  that  time.  The  fol 
lowing  chapter  will  have  to  do  with  the  like  subject  in  the  other  Southern 
states.  Wherever  these  excesses  appeared,  they  were  not  unlike  the  ghost 
of  departed  liberty.  They  took  a  grisly,  horrific  aspect,  to  deter  the  super 
stitious  and  defy  the  selfish.  They  were  not  more  revolutionary  than  the 
causes  which  produced,  and  which  do  not  justify  them. 

Measures  of  repression  and  usurpation  are  in  their  very  nature  revolu 
tionary.  The  strain  to  keep  freemen  down  is  sure  to  react.  As  to  these 
secret  societies  in  the  South,  history  should  not  fail  to  consider  the  circum 
stances  under  which  they  arose. 

This  unlawfulness  did  not  appear  immediately  after  the  war.  The  South 
had  accepted  the  arbitration  of  arms.  It  began  to  grow  contented.  Its  peo 
ple  embraced  all  the  conditions  proposed  in  1867,  for  their  state  governments. 
They  abolished  slavery,  annulled  the  secession  ordinance  and  the  rebel  debt, 
accepted  negro  suffrage,  and  sent  representatives  to  Congress.  Their  ten 
ders  were  received  grudgingly  and  suspiciously.  Then  the  discontent  began. 
It  dates  from  the  repulse  in  Congress  and  the  breach  of  faith  to  them  in 
Washington. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 


KU-KLUX  OUTRAGES.— CONTINUED. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  —  FRAUD  AND  VIOLENCE  IN  ELECTIONS  —  TWO  CONTESTED 
ELECTION  CASES  —  GEORGIA  —GENERAL  SWAYNE'S  REPORT  —  GENERAL  GOR 
DON'S  VIEWS  —  NO  EXCUSE  FOR  KU-KLUX  ORGANIZATIONS  OR  RAIDS  —  ALA 
BAMA—ASSASSINATION  OF  ALEXANDER  BOYD  —  INTIMIDATION  OF  STU 
DENTS—THE  METHODIST  CHURCH  SOUTH  -  OUTRAGES  UPON  PREACHERS  — 
MISSISSIPPI  —  HOSTILITY  TO  FREE  SCHOOLS  —  OUTRAGES  ON  SCHOOL 
TEACHERS  — THE  MERIDIAN  RIOT  —  WHIPPING  OF  HUGGINS  AND  McBRIDE 

—  THE    KU-KLUX    START   IN  TENNESSEE  —  THEIR  RAPID   SPREAD  IN  OTHER 
SOUTHERN    STATES— BAD    GOVERNMENT    CAUSES    SECRET    ASSOCIATIONS 

—  HENCE,     THE     ILLUMINES  —  THE  TUGEND-BUND  —  THE   CARBONARI -THE 
JACOBIN    CLUBS  — THE    NIHILISTS  —  THE    FENIANS  —  THE    LOYAL    LEAGUES 

-AND  THE  KU-KLUX  KLANS  —  THE  AUTHOR'S  SPEECH  AGAINST  THE  FORCE 
BILL. 

TESTIMONY  that  was  taken  in  1868,  in  two  contested  election  cases 
in  the  United  States  House  of  Representatives,  exhibits  the  condi 
tion  of  affairs  that  existed  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina  at  that 
time.  The  contests  in  question  were  in  the  cases  of  Hoge  and  Reed, 
of  the  Third  district,  and  of  Wallace  and  Simpson,  of  the  Fourth  district. 
Mr.  Hoge  and  Mr.  Wallace  were  both  Republicans.  Almost  as  a  matter  of 
course,  they  obtained  their  seats.  Evidence  was  presented  tending  to  show 
that  the  two  Democrats  who  had  obtained  certificates,  had  secured  their 
majorities  by  violence  and  fraud.  Their  opponents  were  seated,  not  because 
they  had  received  a  majority  of  the  votes,  but  on  the  ground  that  the  two 
Democrats  were  ineligible,  being  banned  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution.  The  Third  district  was  composed  of  the  counties  of  Abbe 
ville,  Anderson,  Edgefield,  Newberry,  Lexington,  Richland,  and  Orange- 
burg  ;  and  in  all  of  these  counties  except  the  last  the  evidence  showed  that 
there  had  existed  the  most  defiant  terrorism  and  fraud.  Several  hundred  men 
from  Edgefield  Countv  had  voted  in  Lexington  County,  and  fifteen  hundred  or 


INTIMIDATION  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  465 

more  of  the  Edgefield  County  men  had  also  voted  the  Democratic  ticket  in 
the  adjacent  counties.  But  this  violation  of  law  was  a  venial  offense,  when 
compared  with  the  measures  resorted  to  by  the  lawless  Southern  men  to  pre 
vent  the  negroes  from  voting.  The  terrorism  existing  in  Edgefield  County 
was  so  great  that  no  man  who  was  not  in  sympathy  with  the  dominant  white 
element  could  be  induced  to  act  as  commissioner  of  election.  One  commis 
sioner  was  shot  at  and  left  the  county,  and  others  refused  to  serve.  The  facts 
in  support  of  the  charges  of  violence  are  too  numerous  to  be  stated  circum 
stantially.  The  white  clubs  organized  in  the  counties  were  secret,  oath- 
bound  societies.  They  patrolled  the  county,  generally  undisguised.  They 
paid  domiciliary  visits  to  the  negroes  and  white  Republicans,  shooting  some, 
whipping  others,  and  warning  all  of  the  consequences  of  voting  the  Repub 
lican  ticket.  The  avowed  purpose  of  these  clubs  was  to  break  up  the  Loyal 
Leagues.  In  order  to  accomplish  this  object,  the  patrol  was  instructed,  if 
necessary,  to  shoot  the  leaders  and  active  men  of  the  Leagues.  One  of  the 
patrol  turned  state's  evidence.  He  confessed  that  he  was  one  of  three  men 
-who  had  orders  to  murder  a  prominent  Republican  named  Randolph.  This 
murder  was  committed  about  one  o'clock  in  the  day,  at  the  railroad  station, 
on  the  arrival  of  the  train  on  which  Randolph  was  a  passenger.  The 
tragedy  occurred  in  Edgefield  County.  "William  R.  Tolbert,  the  man  who 
had  turned  state's  evidence,  stated  that  he  himself  and  two  associates  fired 
on  Randolph,  who  fell  dead.  These  murderers  were  probably  men  of  the 
lowest  class  of  whites  ;  but  they  were  not  more  guilty  than  their  more  intel 
ligent  abettors.  According  to  the  testimony,  the  members  of  the  club  were 
sworn  to  obey  the  orders  of  their  captain.  They  were  instructed  to  find  out 
the  meeting  places  of  the  Loyal  League,  and  to  fire  into  them.  They  were 
to  aim  at  their  leading  men.  The  club  had  special  orders,  at  the  Presiden 
tial  and  congressional  election  on  the  3d  of  November,  1868,  to  be  at  the 
polls  early  and  not  to  allow  a  negro  or  a  Republican  to  vote. 

Testimony  to  the  same  effect  was  given  by  other  witnesses.  Republi 
cans  of  both  races  were  intimidated  and  driven  from  the  polls  by  the  prac 
tice  of  whipping,  shooting,  killing,  and  expelling  them  from  their  houses. 
The  terrorism  was  so  great  that,  although  Edgefield  County  contained  4,200 
colored  voters,  only  800  of  them  voted  at  that  election  ;  while  the  white  vote 
was  between  eighteen  and  nineteen  hundred.  There  was  less  of  violence 
and  bloodshed  in  Lexington  County  ;  but  there,  also,  the  Republicans  were 
intimidated.  Nine  hundred  Republican  voters,  six  hundred  of  them  colored, 
were  deterred  from  attempting  to  vote,  while  on  the  contrary  several  hundred 
Democratic  citizens  of  Edgefield  County  were  permitted  to  vote  in  Lexing 
ton.  In  Anderson  County,  about  half  of  the  colored  voters  abstained  from 
voting.  This  was  in  consequence  of  threats  of  expulsion  from  their  homes. 
Two  young  men  were  whipped  for  being  Republicans. 


466  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION 

Mr.  Wallace,  the  Republican  candidate  for  Congress  in  the  Fourth  dis 
trict,  testified  at  length  as  to  the  condition  of  terrorism  in  which  the  Repub 
licans  lived  in  his  district.  This  district  was,  at  that  time,  composed  of  the 
counties  of  Fairfield,  Chester,  York,  Spartanburg,  Union,  Laurens,  Oconee, 
Pickens,  and  Greenville.  At  the  election  in  Laurens  County,  the  Demo 
crats  formed  lines  around  the  polls.  They  thus  kept  off  many  of  the  negroes 
who  would  have  voted  ;  while  some  Republican  negroes  voted  the  Demo 
cratic  ticket,  from  fear  of  punishment  or  of  expulsion  from  their  homes.  It 
was  testified  that  in  Pickens  County  armed  bands  rode  about  through  the 
country  every  night  for  over  a  week  previous  to  the  election.  They  thus  in 
timidated  the  colored  people  and  prevented  them,  as  well  as  many  white 
people,  from  voting.  Outside  the  polls,  parties  opened  the  tickets  and  took 
down  the  names  of  all  persons  who  voted  the  Republican  ticket ;  while  those- 
who  voted  the  Democratic  ticket  were  given  certificates  by  which  they  could 
obtain  employment.  In  fact,  if  this  evidence  be  credible,  even  in  the  least 
degree,  the  election  was  carried  by  fraud  and  intimidation. 

The  enforcement  of  the  Reconstruction  acts  was  the  chief  provocation  to- 
the  outrages  perpetrated  by  the  white  people  upon  the  blacks.  The  enfran 
chisement  of  the  negroes  was  resented  by  those  who  for  generations  had 
been  accustomed  to  treat  them  as  chattels. 

In  reference  to  South  Carolina,  the  report  of  the  joint  select  committee 
of  the  two  houses  of  Congress  of  1872  contains  such  a  mass  of  revolting 
details  that  one  cannot  decide  where  to  begin  their  citation  or  where  to  stop . 
Murders,  or  attempts  to  murder,  are  numerous.  Whippings  are  without, 
number.  Probably  the  most  cruel  and  cowardly  of  these  last  was  the  whip 
ping  of  Elias  Hill.  He  was  a  colored  man  who  had,  from  infancy,  been 
dwarfed  in  legs  and  arms.  He  was  unable  to  use  either.  But  he  possessed, 
an  intelligent  mind ;  had  learned  to  read ;  and  had  acquired  an  unusual 
amount  of  knowledge  for  one  in  his  circumstances.  He  was  a  Baptist 
preacher.  He  was  highly  respected  for  his  upright  character.  He  was  em 
inently  religious,  and  was  greatly  revered  by  the  people  of  his  own  race.  It 
was  on  this  ground  that  he  was  visited  by  the  Ku-Klux,  brutally  beaten, 
and  dragged  from  his  house  into  the  yard,  where  he  was  left  in  the  cold  at 
night,  unable  to  walk  or  crawl.  After  the  fiends  had  left,  his  sister  brought 
him  into  the  house.  Although  this  man  was  a  Republican,  his  testimony 
gave  evidence  of  the  mildness  and  Christian  forbearance  of  his  character,  as 
well  as  his  freedom  from  ill-will  toward  the  white  race.  In  answer  to  a 
question  as  to  his  feeling  toward  the  whites,  he  replied  that  he  had  good-will, 
love,  and  affection  toward  them  ;  but  that  he  feared  them.  He  said  that  he 
had  never  made  the  wrongs  and  cruelties  inflicted  by  white  people  on  his 
race  the  subject  of  his  sermons  ;  but  that  he  preached  the  gospel  only  — 
repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


BITTER  FEELING  IN  GEORGIA.  467 

It  seems,  according  to  the  report  of  the  committee  (from  which  the 
statements  of  this  chapter  are  mainly  taken),  that  the  operations  of  the 
Ku-Klux  organization  throughout  the  State  of  South  Carolina  since  1868, 
had  been  confined  chiefly  to  the  nine  counties  already  mentioned.  There 
were  only  a  few  sporadic  cases  in  other  counties.  These  were  immediately 
after  the  election  in  October,  1870.  With  the  Hamburgh  massacre  of  the  8th 
of  July,  1867,  this  bloody  period  of  South  Carolina  history  was  brought  to 
a  close.  The  writer  has  fully  stated  from  his  seat  in  Congress,  his  opinion 
of  the  facts  in  that  matter.  The  facts  exonerate  Mr.  Butler,  one  of  the 
present  Senators  of  South  Carolina,  who  was  harshly  criticised  at  the  North. 
That  gentleman,  in  all  that  he  did,  endeavored  to  allay  and  prevent,  rather 
than  foment  the  terrible  excitement. 

The  condition  of  affairs  in  the  State  of  Georgia,  Immediately  after  the 
close  of  the  war,  was  represented  in  an  official  report  made  by  Gen.  Wa 
ger  Swayne,  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  It  was  dated  Dec.  16,  1865.  He 
stated  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  Federal  troops  had  been  followed  by  out 
rages  on  the  freed  people  ;  that  their  school-houses  had  been  burned,  their 
teachers  driven  off  or  threatened  with  death,  and  the  freed  people  compelled 
by  fraud,  and  even  by  violence,  to  enter  into  unjust  contracts.  The  respon 
sible  and  educated  classes  were  represented  by  General  Swayne  as  being 
ashamed  of  these  outrages  and  as  claiming  that  they  should  not  be  judged  by 
the  people  who  were  mean  and  cruel  enough  to  practice  such  wrongs.  He 
remarked,  however,  that  the  convictions  of  these  higher  classes  never  took 
form  in  action  ;  and  but  seldom  in  manly  open  protest ;  and  that  it  required 
the  most  careful  nursing  and  culture  to  keep  alive  even  a  show  of  justice 
toward  the  freed  people.  He  stated  that  nearly  all  the  females  and  young 
men,  and  all  the  black-legs  and  rowdies,  were  open  and  defiant  in  their 
expressions  of  hate  toward  the  "Yankees"  and  negroes,  and  that  the  only 
public  opinion  which  made  itself  felt  was  as  bitter  and  as  malignant  as 
ever. 

Such  was  the  state  of  feeling  in  Georgia  at  the  close  of  the  war,  as  it 
appeared  to  a  United  States  army  officer.  It  was  a  natural  feeling  of 
chagrin  and  mortification  at  defeat.  It  was  mingled  with  detestation  of  the 
conqueror  and  contempt  for  the  rights  of  the  negro.  Suffrage  had  not  then 
been  given  to  the  negroes,  but  President  Johnson  had  stripped  many  of  the 
leading  men  in  the  Southern  States  —  in  fact  all  those  who  had  theretofore 
participated  in  the  government  —  of  the  right  to  vote  and  hold  office.  It 
would  have  been  strange,  therefore,  if  such  bitterness  of  feeling  had  not 
existed  for  a  time.  But  it  will  be  seen  that,  a  few  years  later,  General 
Gordon,  an  eminent  and  eloquent  Georgian,  who  had  succeeded  Stonewall 
Jackson  in  the  command  of  his  corps,  saw  things  in  a  very  different  light. 
His  statement  before  the  joint  select  committee  is  summed  up  approvingly 


468  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

in  the  report  of  the  committee.  It  is  to  this  effect :  that  the  magnanimity 
and  deference  shown  by  General  Grant  and  his  officers  toward  the  army  of 
the  South,  at  the  time  of  and  after  the  surrender,  had  led  them  to  hope  that 
they  would  be  permitted  to  go  home,  resume  their  places  and  rights  as  citi 
zens,  organize  their  state  governments,  and  resume  their  relations  to  the  gen 
eral  government,  just  as  if  there  had  been  no  rebellion  ;  but  that,  after  Presi 
dent  Lincoln's  death,  the  people  became  apprehensive  that  some  hanging 
and  general  confiscation  would  follow.  When  relieved  of  those  apprehen 
sions,  and  when  the  terms  of  reconstruction  and  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment  were  proposed  by  Congress,  they  began  to  complain  of  want  of  good 
faith  toward  them.  They  became  sullen  and  defiant.  They  regarded  the 
government  as  having  outraged  them  and  deprived  them  of  their  rights. 
General  Gordon  spoke  in  high  praise  of  the  conduct  of  the  negroes  during 
the  war.  He  referred  to  a  speech  made  by  himself  at  Montgomery,  Ala 
bama,  while  the  contest  was  still  raging.  In  that  speech  he  praised  the 
fidelity  of  the  negroes.  He  urged  the  white  people  to  provide  for  the  edu 
cation  of  the  colored  people.  His  remarks  had  been  applauded,  and  many 
of  the  negroes  who  were  present  had  come  to  him  afterwards  and  thanked 
him.  But  he  said  that,  when  the  "  carpet-baggers "  organized  the  Loyal 
Leagues  in  1865  and  1866,  the  white  people  became  alarmed.  They,  too, 
•organized  a  secret  order  called  "  The  Brotherhood."  The  whole  object  of 
this  organization,  he  said,  was  to  repel  attacks  of  the  Leagues.  It  extended 
throughout  the  state,  and  had  no  political  end  in  view.  This  Brother 
hood,  however,  dissolved,  he  said,  as  soon  as  the  courts  were  re-established. 
The  people  believed  that  the  courts,  although  in  the  hands  of  Republi 
cans,  would  execute  the  laws  fairly. 

A  secret  organization  that  is  formed  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  affairs 
and  of  righting  private  wrongs  will  infallibly  drift  into  politics.  The  Loyal 
Leagues  wrere  organized  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  up,  at  fever  heat,  the 
sentiment  of  loyalty  to  the  Republican  party.  They  became  political  organ 
izations  from  the  start.  They  impressed  the  negroes  with  the  belief  that 
the  adherents  of  the  Democratic  party  were,  at  best,  but  lukewarm,  half 
hearted  friends  of  the  Union. 

It  is  remarkable  that,  in  Georgia  as  well  as  in  North  and  South  Caro 
lina,  and  in  other  states  where  the  Ku-Klux  organization  existed,  its  op 
erations  were  carried  on  in  counties  where  the  whites  preponderated.  It 
is  also  worthy  of  note  that  the  numbers  of  the  Ku-Klux  Klan  who  sallied 
out  to  make  raids  upon  negro  cabins  or  upon  the  teachers  of  negro  schools, 
were  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  probable  resistance  to  be  encountered. 
These  valiant  defenders  of  society  who  prowled  over  the  country  under  the 
cover  of  night  and  of  hideous  disguises,  rarely  encountered  a  foe,  unless 
they  had  a  force  of  ten  or  twenty  to  one  ;  and  there  were  cases  in  which  a 


KU-KLUX  IN  ALABAMA.  469 

score  of  them  were  put  to  flight  by  a  well-directed  shot  from  a  cabin.     So 
true  it  is  that  men  who  are  capable  of  acts  of  cruelty  are  apt  to  be  poltroons. 
In  the  State  of  Alabama  there  was  the  like  amount  of  bitterness  of  feel 
ing  and  of  hostility  toward  "Yankees  "  and  negroes  that  was  exhibited  in 
the  other  Gulf  states  at  the  close  of  the  war.     Opposition  to  the  education 
of  negroes  was  strong.     Acts  of  violence  were  not  infrequent.     Governor 
Lindsay    was    elected   governor    of  Alabama   under   the    first   constitution 
adopted  in  1865,  which  confined  suffrage  to  the  white  race.     He  admitted 
that  the  Ku-Klux  organization  existed  in  Alabama  in  1868.     He  stated  that 
he  had  approved  and  signed  the  act  of  the  Republican  legislature,  passed 
in  December,  1868,  for  the  suppression  of  the  order.     When  he  testified  in 
1871,  he  did  not  believe  that  the  order  then  existed  in   that  state      There 
was  evidence,  however,  that  an  organized  band  of  ruffians  had  perpetrated 
murder  by  wholesale  in  Alabama  as  late  as  1870.     William  C.  Luke,  a  white 
school-teacher,  was  murdered  on  the  nth  of  July,  1870,  near  the  village  of 
Cross  Plains,  in  Calhoun  County.     At  the  same  time  and  place  four  colored 
men  were  murdered,  named   respectively  Tony  Cliff,  Barry  Harris,  Caesar 
Frederick,  and  William  Hall.     These  and  other  murders  were  perpetrated 
by  a  band  of  disguised  men.     The  governor  of  the  state  employed  ex-Gov 
ernor  Lewis  E.  Parsons  to  prosecute  the  murderers.     The  facts  were  fur 
nished  to  the  congressional  committee  by  Mr.  Parsons.     He  stated  that,  in 
the  progress  of  the  trial,  the  proof  in  regard  to  the  operation  of  the  Ku-Klux 
Klan  showed  that  it  had  been  active  in  several  counties  in  northern  Alabama 
ever  since  the  year  1868.     In  repeated  instances  colored  men  had  been  taken 
out  and  whipped  with  hickory  withes,  sometimes  beaten  very  severely  with 
canes,  sometimes  shot,  and  otherwise  outraged.     Chancellor  J.  S.  Clark,  of 
the  middle  district  of  Alabama,  resided  at  Eutaw,  in  Greene  County.     He 
was  a  Democrat.     He  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  Ku-Klux  organization 
had  been  set  on  foot  for  the  purpose  of  scaring  the  negroes,  and  that  the 
negroes  were  intimidated  thereby  ;  and  that  the  larger  portion  of  the  people 
in   the  community  where  he  lived  was  opposed  to  the  lawlessness  of  the 
Ku-Klux,  although  no  public  meeting  had  been  called  to  put  it  down. 

A  most  atrocious  act  of  assassination  was  committed  in  Greene  County, 
Alabama,  in  March,  1870.  The  prosecuting  attorney  of  that  county  was 
the  victim.  Alexander  Boyd,  on  account  of  his  activity  in  prosecuting  per 
sons  charged  with  Ku-Klux  outrages,  was  boarding  at  the  hotel  on  the  pub 
lic  square  in  the  town  of  Eutaw.  About  eleven  o'clock  at  night,  a  band  of 
disguised  men,  estimated  at  twenty-five  in  number,  rode  into  the  town. 
They  formed  in  front  of  the  hotel,  detached  a  squad  of  men  who  compelled 
the  clerk  to  show  them  to  Mr.  Boyd's  room,  and  there  deliberately  murdered 
him,  putting  two  bullets  through  his  forehead,  and  several  through  other 
parts  of  his  body.  The  town  was  full  of  strangers.  Many  people  were  on 


470  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  street,  but  no  effort  was  made  to  arrest  the  murderers,  although  the 
sheriff  was  at  the  hotel  soon  after  the  murder.  Whatever  the  number  of 
honorable  and  humane  people  there,  they  were  terrorized  by  the  ruffians. 
Mr.  Boyd  was  buried  the  next  day  without  receiving  the  usual  testimonial 
of  respect  from  his  legal  brethren.  Not  one  of  them  attended  his  funeral. 

Intimidation  and  terrorism  were  practiced  even  against  the  students  in  the 
University  at  Tuscaloosa.  On  one  of  the  doors  of  that  university  a  bundle 
of  letters  was  found  one  morning.  It  wras  fastened  by  a  dagger.  These 
letters  were  addressed  to  individual  students,  notifying  them  to  leave  within 
a  given  time,  under  penalty  of  the  vengeance  of  the  Ku-Klux  Klan.  The 
threats  had  the  desired  effect.  The  students  to  whom  they  were  addressed 
left  the  university.  Nothing  is  more  likely  than  that,  if  the  faculty  and  stu 
dents  had  organized  for  their  defense,  the  cowardly  assassins  would  have  kept 
at  a  respectful  distance. 

The  Methodist  Church  of  the  United  States  was  divided  into  two  bodies 
in  1844,  by  the  secession  of  that  portion  of  it  which  was  located  in  the  slave- 
holding  states.  The  discipline  of  the  church,  while  tolerating  slave-holding 
on  the  part  of  private  members,  denied  the  privilege  to  the  ministers.  This 
arrangement  had  worked  very  well  in  the  days  of  small  things,  when  the 
ministers  were,  as  a  rule,  poor  men  ;  but,  as  the  church  grew  in  wealth  and 
consequence,  the  ministers  not  unfrequently  married  into  families  that  owned 
many  slaves.  The  institution  of  slavery,  as  it  grew  in  pecuniary  value, 
became  less  and  less  obnoxious  to  criticism,  at  least  in  the  South ;  and,  from 
these  combined  causes,  the  yoke  imposed  by  the  discipline  dictated  by 
the  great  founder  of  Methodism,  John  Wesley,  became  unbearable.  The 
question  of  obedience  to  it  as  a  test  of  fidelity  to  Methodism  came  up  for 
discussion  in  the  general  council  in  1844.  The  discussion  arose  on  the  ques 
tion  of  tolerating  the  disregard  of  it  by  one  of  the  bishops.  This  bishop 
was  the  Rt.  Rev.  Mr.  Andrews,  of  Georgia.  He  had  married  a  lady  who 
owned  a  number  of  slaves.  He  was  not  willing  to  surrender  his  claim  of 
right  to  hold  them.  If  his  offense  against  the  discipline  had  been  one 
not  likely  to  occur  again,  the  difficulty  might  have  been  settled  by  com 
promise  ;  but,  as  there  were  thousands  of  young  ministers  who  stood  ready 
to  follow  the  example  of  the  bishop  ;  and,  as  the  Southern  branch  of  the 
church  had  become  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  pro-slavery  sentiment,  the 
recalcitrant  attitude  of  the  Georgia  bishop  was  universally  sustained  by  the 
people  and  clergy  south  of  the  Potomac.  The  result  was,  that  the  church 
was  rent  in  twain  ;  and  from  that  day  forward,  there  have  been  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South.  Each  is  as 
distinct  in  its  organization  as  the  Presbyterians  and  the  Baptists. 

Soon  after  the  war,  an  effort  was  made  by  the  Northern  branch  of  the 
church  —  and  not  without  considerable  success  —  to  re-establish  the  church 


PERSECUTION  OF  METHODISTS.  471 

in  the  South,  on  the  original  basis  of  opposition  to  slavery.  The  occasion 
was  not  illy  chosen  to  make  converts  among  the  colored  people  and  among 
the  poor  whites  ;  but  the  attempt  was  none  the  less  a  source  of  irritation.  It 
led  to  the  intervention  of  Ku-Klux  violence.  The  Methodist  bishop  of  Ohio, 
Bishop  Clark,  in  1865,  sent  the  Rev.  A.  S.  Lakin  into  the  South  with  this 
object  in  view.  Mr.  Lakin  met  with  a  checkered  experience.  He  never 
.advanced  a  political  opinion  in  the  pulpit ;  and  yet  his  mission  was  to  set  up 
a  church,  the  distinguishing  feature  of  which  was  antagonism  to  slavery. 
He  testified  before  the  congressional  committee  in  1871,  at  which  time  he 
summed  up  the  work  which  had  been  accomplished  as  follows  :  c '  We  have 
there  now  about  15,000  members,  a  fraction  over  three-fourths  of  whom  are 
white  ;  we  have  six  presiding  elder  districts,  seventy  circuits  and  stations, 
.seventy  traveling  ministers,  and  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  local  preachers." 

It  seems  that  in  1868,  Mr.  Lakin  was  elected  president  of  the  State  Uni 
versity  at  Tuscaloosa,  but  was  compelled  to  vacate  by  the  Ku-Klux.  He 
was  grossly  assailed  by  a  newspaper.  His  great  success  in  building  up  the 
church  was  not  unattended  by  persecutions  such  as  were  experienced  by  the 
early  Christians  ;  but  personally,  he  was  not,  like  Paul,  honored  by  "  stripes 
more  abundant"  than  his  fellow-laborers.  On  the  contrary,  he  seems  to 
have  escaped  the  ultima  ratio  of  the  Ku-Klux  disputants.  His  subordinates 
in  the  ministry,  however,  were  not  so  fortunate,  judging  from  the  list  of  out 
rages  upon  preachers  which  he  furnished  to  the  committee.  The  list  showed 
that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Sullivan  was  whipped  ;  that  the  Rev.  J.  A.  McCutcheon, 
presiding  elder,  was  driven  from  the  Demopolis  district  in  1868  ;  that  the 
Rev.  James  Buchanan  and  the  Rev.  John  W.  Tailly,  presiding  elder,  were 
driven  away  ;  that  the  Rev.  Jesse  Kingston,  local  preacher,  was  shot  in  1869  ; 
that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Johnson  was  shot  in  the  pulpit  in  1869;  that  the  Rev. 
James  Dorman  was  whipped  in  1869,  and  driven  away  in  1870 ;  that  Dean 
Reynolds  was  whipped  and  left  for  dead,  with  both  arms  broken  ;  that  a 
colored  preacher  and  his  son  were  shot  dead  on  the  West  Point  and  Mont 
gomery  road  ;  and  that  the  Rev.  George  Taylor  was  whipped.  In  Alabama, 
as  elsewhere,  the  most  Ku-Klux  outrages  were  committed  in  counties  where 
the  white  population  largely  outnumbered  the  colored. 

The  testimony  taken  by  the  joint  select  committee  as  to  Ku-Klux  out 
rages  in  the  State  of  Mississippi  fills  nearly  twelve  hundred  octavo  pages. 
From  such  a  wilderness  of  statements  it  is  difficult  to  make  up  an  intelligent 
synopsis  within  allowable  limits.  Gen.  George  H.  Thomas,  in  his  report 
dated  Sept.  30,  1867,  epitomized  the  report  made  to  him  by  Gen.  W". 
D.  Whipple.  It  contained  General  Whipple's  observations  in  a  tour  through 
the  states  of  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Georgia,  the  preceding  November. 
The  substance  of  it  was  that  the  general  theme  of  conversation  was  the  hated 
Yankee  and  whatever  represented  loyalty  to  the  Union ;  that  Union  men 


47 2  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

were  murdered  in  cold  blood  or  were  driven  off  their  farms  ;  that  soldiers 
and  government  employes  were  shot  at  or  assaulted  in  the  performance  of 
their  duties  ;  and  that  no  redress  was  to  be  obtained  from  the  civil  author 
ities. 

There  was  a  strong  feeling  of  opposition  manifested  in  Mississippi  against 
free  schools,  supported  by  taxation.  This  opposition  was  attributed  by 
Northern  men  and  Republicans  to  prejudice  against  the  education  of  the 
negroes  ;  but,  by  the  planters  and  other  Southern  men  who  testified  before 
the  committee,  it  was  ascribed  to  the  misuse  of  the  school  funds,  which 
were  in  some  way,  absorbed  or  injudiciously  expended  by  the  "  carpet 
baggers"  ;  and  there  is,  indeed,  abundant  proof  that  the  difficulties  of  recon 
struction  were  greatly  intensified  by  the  character  of  the  Northern  men  who 
went,  or  were  sent,  South  to  fill  the  offices.  The  general  hostility  to  free 
schools  on  the  part  of  the  whites  was  illustrated  by  what  took  place  in  the 
county  of  Pontotoc,  as  testified  by  Mr.  Flournoy,  the  school  superintendent. 
In  that  county  the  whites  largely  predominated,  so  that  out  of  sixty-four 
public  schools,  only  twelve  were  for  colored  children.  Of  the  teachers  there 
were  but  eleven  Republicans,  and  one  of  these  was  a  colored  man.  Upon 
these  eleven  school  teachers  a  systematic  war  was  made  by  the  Ku-Klux. 
Their  homes  or  lodgings  were  invaded  by  night.  Some  of  them  were 
whipped ;  and  all  of  them  were  warned  to  leave  the  neighborhood  forth 
with.  Mr.  Flournoy  himself,  although  a  Southern  man,  was  not  exempt 
from  attack.  He  had  a  raid  made  upon  him  by  a  band  of  Ku-Klux  one  night 
in  May,  1871.  Having  had  warning  of  his  danger,  however,  he  had  made 
preparations,  and,  with  a  party  of  citizens  who  had  volunteered  to  defend 
him,  and  who  were  all,  with  one  exception,  Democrats,  the  assailants  were 
driven  off,  leaving  behind  them  one  of  their  number,  mortally  wounded. 

What  came  to  be  known  as  the  Meridian  riot  caused  great  excitement 
throughout  the  State  of  Mississippi.  It  was  carefully  inquired  into  by  the  com 
mittee.  The  recital  of  its  details  would  occupy  too  much  space,  and  would 
only  be  an  additional  illustration  of  the  disturbed  condition  of  society  in 
those  Southern  States.  It  is  enough  to  say  that,  at  a  magistrate's  examina 
tion  of  charges  against  three  negroes  for  using  incendiary  language  at  a 
public  meeting  and  for  threatening  to  burn  the  town,  a  fight  occurred. 
Some  twenty  or  thirty  pistol  shots  were  fired  in  the  court- room.  Judge 
Bramlette  was  shot  dead  while  sitting  on  the  bench.  Several  others  were 
killed  or  wounded.  The  alarm-bells  were  rung.  Several  houses  in  the 
town  were  set  on  fire  and  burned.  Among  them  was  the  colored  Baptist 
church.  A  number  of  colored  men  were  killed. 

But  perhaps  none  of  the  lawless  acts  which  so  dtsgraced  the  states  of 
the  South  during  this  unfortunate  period  was  more  entitled  to  condemnation 
and  detestation  than  the  brutal,  merciless  whipping  of  Mr.  A.  P.  Huggins. 


OUTRAGES  IN  MISSISSIPPI.  473 

He  had  been  an  officer  in  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  He  was  then,  March, 
1870,  an  assistant  assessor  of  internal  revenue,  and  superintendent  of  public 
schools.  On  an  official  business  tour  in  Monroe  County,  he  was  spending 
the  night,  by  invitation,  at  the  house  of  a  respectable  Democratic  citizen 
named  Ross.  The  house  was  surrounded  by  a  band  of  about  a  hundred  and 
twenty  men,  armed  and  disguised.  They  induced  Huggins  to  leave  the  house 
and  accompany  them.  They  promised  that  not  a  hair  of  his  head  should 
be  injured,  saying  that  they  merely  wanted  to  give  him  a  warning.  At 
some  little  distance  from  the  house  the  warning  was  given  by  the  leader  of 
the  band,  in  a  very  pompous  manner.  It  was  to  the  effect  that  Huggins 
should  leave  the  county  within  ten  days,  and  that  in  the  meantime  he  should 
relieve  them  from  all  county  taxes.  He  was  told  that  the  rule  of  the  "  camp" 
was,  first  to  give  warning ;  second,  to  enforce  obedience  by  whipping  ;  third, 
to  have  the  killing  done  by  the  "  Klan"  ;  or,  fourth,  to  have  it  done  pri 
vately,  by  assassination  or  otherwise.  Not  deterred  by  these  direful  threats, 
Huggins  informed  them  that  he  should  leave  at  his  pleasure,  and  not  until 
he  got  ready.  Thereupon  he  was  surrounded  and  disarmed,  and  carried 
off  some  distance  farther.  They  paid  no  heed  to  his  reminder  that  they  had 
promised  to  do  him  no  injury,  or  to  his  warning  that  he  was  an  officer  of 
the  United  States.  They  pulled  his  coat  off,  and  commenced  to  whip  him 
with  a  short  stirrup  strap.  The  executioners  relieved  each  other.  None 
struck  more  than  ten  blows,  and  some  only  two  or  three.  The  count  reached 
fifty.  Then,  as  he  still  refused  to  yield,  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  burly 
in  the  crowd  took  the  strap.  He  struck  twenty-five  blows  without  stopping. 
Mr.  Huggins  heard  them  say  "seventy-five";  and  then  nature  gave  way. 
The  victim  of  these  cruel  ruffians  lost  strength  and  consciousness  ;  and  when 
he  came  to  himself,  several  of  them  passed  in  front  of  him  showing  their 
pistols,  and  telling  him  that  if  he  was  not  gone  in  ten  days,  they  were  sworn 
to  kill  him  either  publicly  or  privately. 

It  ought  to  be  said  —  not  in  extenuation  of  the  crime,  but  in  explanation 
of  it  —  that  the  popular  dislike  to  Mr.  Huggins  arose  from  his  active  instru 
mentality  in  the  exaction  of  heavy  taxes  and  his  alleged  extravagant  and  dis 
honest  use  of  the  school  moneys  that  passed  through  his  hands.  He  was  sup 
posed  to  pay  extravagant  wages  to  teachers  and  exorbitant  prices  for  school 
buildings  and  furniture.  He  had  graduated  as  a  philanthropist  in  the  school 
of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  where  he  had  not  learned  the  lesson:  "Thou 
shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth  out  the  corn." 

A  similar  outrage  was  perpetrated  in  March,  1871,  against  Cornelius  Mc- 
Bride.  He  was  an  intelligent  man,  from  the  North  of  Ireland.  His  only 
offense  was  the  teaching  of  a  colored  school.  This  outrage  occurred  near 
Sparta,  in  Chickasaw  County. 

These  are  specimens  of  the  achievements  of  the  Ku-Klux  in  Mississippi. 

30 


474  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  testimony  exhibits  a  long  list  of  killed  and  wounded.  Of  the  killed 
thirteen  were  white  persons  and  thirty  colored.  Besides,  there  were  some 
unnamed  and  undescribed.  Of  the  whipped  twelve  were  white  and  sixty- 
six  colored,  besides  some  half  dozen  others  also  unnamed  and  undescribed. 

In  Mississippi,  as  in  the  other  states,  the  same  fact  was  presented  that 
the  Ku-Klux  organization  and  operations  were  confined  to  those  counties 
wherein  the  whites  largely  predominated  ;  while  in  the  counties  where  the 
negroes  were  in  great  numerical  majority,  and  where  alone  the  peace 
of  society  might  be  endangered  by  them,  there  was  an  almost  entire 
absence  of  Ku-Klux  outrages.  If  the  apology  for  Ku-Kluxism  is  to  be  ad 
mitted,  it  follows  that  the  danger  to  the  white  race  from  the  presence  of  a 
negro  population,  emancipated  from  the  restraints  of  slavery,  was  not 
directly,  but  inversely  proportional  to  their  numbers. 

There  was  no  testimony  taken  before  the  joint  select  committee  in  regard 
to  Ku-Klux  outrages  in  Tennessee.  The  fact  of  their  occurrence  there  is 
sufficiently  attested  by  the  reports  of  army  officers ;  by  the  proclamation  of 
Governor  Brownlow  in  January  and  February,  1869,  declaring  the  existence 
in  middle  and  west  Tennessee  of'4  lawless  bands  who  set  at  defiance  civil 
law"  .  .  .  and  of  "  masked  villains  called  Ku-Klux"  ;  by  the  fact  that 
the  legislature  passed  a  law  on  the  2Oth  of  January,  1870,  making  it  a 
felony  for  disguised  or  masked  parties  to  enter  a  house  by  night  or  to  de 
mand  entrance  to  the  same  ;  and  also  by  the  fact  that  in  several  counties  pub 
lic  meetings  were  held  and  resolutions  adopted  denouncing  the  Ku-Klux 
Klan  and  all  similar  organizations  in  resistance  to  civil  law.  The  disorders 
that  existed  in  that  state  were  due,  in  great  part,  to  the  arbitrary  and  unwise 
measures  of  reconstruction  that  were  instituted  and  enforced  by  the  Rev. 
William  G.  Brownlow,  afterwards  governor,  who  was  a  man  remarkable 
for  his  prejudices  and  energies.  There  is  much  to  be  said  in  extenuation  of 
his  harsh  measures,  for  he  was  measuring  out  to  others  what  had  been  given 
in  full  measure  to  himself  and  thousands  of  other  Unionists,  in  and  out  of 
prison,  in  and  out  of  office.  While  he  was  military  governor,  Andrew  John 
son  was  not  entirely  exempt  from  the  same  charge  of  unwisdom.  The  trav 
esty  of  a  state  constitution  had  been  framed  at  a  popular  partisan  convention. 
As  shown  in  a  former  chapter  there  was  a  rigorous  clause  in  it  which  ex 
cluded  from  the  right  of  suffrage  all  who  had  participated  in  the  rebellion  and 
who  had  not  afterwards  joined  the  Republican  party  and  voted  with  it.  All 
others,  whatever  might  have  been  their  course  of  conduct,  were  to  be  watched 
closely.  They  were  required,  when  they  came  to  the  polls  and  offered  to 
vote,  to  exhibit  a  clean  bill  of  political  health.  It  is  not  surprising  that  this 
tyranny  of  a  relatively  small  faction,  supported  as  it  was  by  the  United  States 
Army,  gave  rise  to  the  secret  order  of  the  Ku-Klux.  This  lawless  and  reck 
less  order,  according  to  the  statement  of  General  Forrest  before  referred  to, 


ULTIMATE  RESPONSIBILITY.  475 

originated  in  Tennessee  in  1866.  This  was  before  the  passage  of  the  Recon 
struction  acts,  and  the  effect  of  those  acts  was  to  spread  the  order  over  a  great 
part  of  the  South. 

The  barbarous  and  cruel  character  of  the  outrages  perpetrated  by  the 
members  of  this  secret,  oath-bound  organization,  the  shootings,  hangings, 
and  whippings  which  took  place  during  the  midnight  raids  of  those  armed 
and  disguised  malefactors,  and  which  spread  dismay  and  terror  among  the 
weak  and  ignorant  colored  people,  have  been  sufficiently  described.  It  is 
unnecessary,  and  would  be  tedious  and  sickening,  to  follow  up  the  narrative 
in  the  other  Southern  states.  It  will  be  enough  to  say  that  in  Arkansas, 
Texas,  and  Louisiana,  the  same  deplorable  condition  of  things  existed,  and 
that  outrages,  terrorism,  and  intimidation  took  the  place  there  of  peace, 
good  order,  and  civil  law. 

Happily,  Ku-Kluxism  and  its  attendant  horrors  are  now  things  of  the 
past.  But  while  they  are  things  of  the  past,  they  furnish  us  historic  lessons. 
When  the  Republican  portion  of  the  Ku-Klux  committee  recommended 
amnesty  at  the  end  of  their  report  to  Congress,  they  demanded  a  further 
enforcement  of  the  rigors  of  the  previous  Ku-Klux  law.  This  was  an  ad 
mission  that  the  South  was  good  enough  for  the  one,  even  if  bad  enough 
for  the  other.  Repression  was  uppermost  in  the  Republican  counsels ;  and 
when  an  anodynous  amnesty  was  proposed,  it  lost  its  efficacy  by  being  ac 
companied  by  caustic  measures.  An  olive-branch  was  in  one  hand  and  a 
sword  in  the  other  ;  the  open  palm  and  clenched  fist ;  the  kiss  of  peace  and 
the  dirk  of  revenge.  Mr.  Blaine  and  others  endeavored  to  reunite  his  party 
in  1868,  upon  the  harsh  measures.  He  could  not  do  it  with  a  quill  from 
the  dove.  If  the  Ku-Klux  grew,  what  fed  their  inordinate  appetite  and  gave 
them  strength?  If  the  great  writ  was  suspended,  and  elections  were  held 
under  enforcements  of  a  bad  law  by  convenient  garrisons  of  soldiers,  were 
there  not  pretexts,  if  not  causes,  for  the  existence  of  such  diablerie  as  the 
fantastic  and  cruel  secret  societies  inaugurated?  No  true  Democrat  ever 
favored  such  societies  or  klans. 

The  writer  was  a  member  of  that  joint  committee,  along  with  Senators 
Bayard,  Beck,  and  others.  His  name  with  theirs  is  affixed  to  the  minority 
report.  Some  conclusions  appear  in  it,  worthy  of  note  :  —  there  was  an 
unqualified  admission  that  there  were  few  if  any  disorders  in  Virginia, 
Florida,  and  Louisiana.  As  to  other  states,  there  was  not  an  accord  of 
judgment  in  the  committee  ;  but  it  was  agreed  generally,  that  the  disturbances 
were  limited  to  a  few  localities  in  certain  portions  of  the  Southern  States. 
Consequently  there  was  no  concerted  system.  Thus  limited,  and  thus  de 
nounced  by  both  parties,  nevertheless,  the  existence  of  the  klans  was  made 
the  pretext  of  a  general  military  dictatorship  over  the  entire  Southern  land. 

During  the  debate  in  Congress  upon  the  force  bill,  April  4,   1871,  the 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

writer  inveighed  against  the  intolerable  burdens  which  the  ignorance., 
bribery,  and  corruption  of  the  legislature  of  South  Carolina  had  heaped 
upon  that  state,  and  the  increase  of  her  debt  and  bonds,  through  plunder* 
These  grievances,  and  the  intolerable  exactions  of  the  Federal  Government 
by  taxes  and  laws,  should  have  had  some  consideration  in  Congress.  Before 
placing  a  whole  people  at  the  mercy  of  an  ignorant  race,  and  setting  up  a 
vindictive  military  supervision  of  suffrage  and  courts-martial,  there  should 
have  been  reasonable  efforts  made  on  the  line  of  conciliation. 

In  one  of  the  discussions  Mr.  Maynard,  of  Tennessee,  asked  the  writer 
if  he  wished  it  understood  that  he  justified  the  conduct  of  the  Ku-Klux 
organization.  The  inference  was  repelled.  The  writer  had  condemned 
it,  from  top  to  toe,  inside,  outside,  and  from  every  side.  He  stated  that 
he  had  proposed  in  the  Democratic  caucus,  the  issuance  of  an  address 
denouncing  all  forms  of  lawlessness,  secret  or  open.  On  Mr.  Hoar's  satiri 
cal  inquiry  —  to  be  informed  whether  the  caucus  assented  —  the  Massachu 
setts  member  received  an  affirmative  answer.  The  following  is  a  con 
densed  statement  of  what  the  writer  said  on  that  occasion,  when  speaking 
against  the  force  bill : 

Recurring,  then,  to  the  invariable  laws  of  society,  and  with  the  method 
of  Buckle  and  the  rule  of  Mackintosh  in  mind,  what  do  the  science  of  his 
tory  and  the  maxims  of  good  sense  teach  as  to  similar  diseases  and  their 
cure?  Is  not  the  secret  conclave,  the  circle,  the  club,  the  league,  the  con 
spiracy,  ever  the  result  of  bad  government?  Is  not  despotism  the  devil 
which  begets  desperation  ?  Is  not  repression  the  father  of  revolution  ?  Does 
not  history  show  that  secret  political  associations  grow  out  of  tyranny  and 
persecution?  Aye;  and  that,  too,  though  they  may  be  at  first  inspired  by 
generous  and  elevated  ideas  of  human  rights. 

Whence  came  the  Illumines,  so  potential  within  this  century?  From 
Weishaupt,  a  learned  professor  of  Germany.  They  spread  into  France  in 
the  time  of  Louis  XVI.  They  spread  over  Europe.  Kosciusko  and  Mira- 
beau,  men  of  action — Kotzebue,  Schiller,  Schlegel — the  geniuses  of  Europe 
—  the  liberty-loving  men  of  the  new  era  —  were  its  devotees.  True,  these 
societies  were  stained  with  plots  and  assassinations.  Bonaparte  tried  to 
crush  them.  The  Tugend-Bund  arose  in  Germany  to  counteract  them,  as 
the  Ku-Klux  did  to  meet  the  Union  Leagues.  They  spread,  with  sword  in 
hand,  over  Europe.  They  were  even  found  on  the  banks  of  the  Delaware 
fighting  for  our  independence. 

The  Jacobin  clubs  of  the  French  revolution  were  another  form  of  unrest. 
Their  diabolical  assassinations,  open  and  secret,  were  a  protest  against  the 
ignorance,  privileges,  and  prejudices  of  absolute  monarchy.  The  same  kind 
of  clubs,  not  so  violent,  but  not  less  revolutionary,  four  hundred  and  fifty  in 
number,  inspired  the  French  revolution  of  1848.  They,  too,  were  a  protest 


DYNAMITE.  477 

-against  an  oligarchy  which  trampled  on  the  popular  interests.  France,  al 
most  to  the  present  day,  is  gashing  and  slashing  herself  in  wild  despair, 
under  the  influence  of  similar  secret  clubs,  the  result  of  that  reaction  which, 
by  immutable  laws,  follows  the  repression  of  a  people.  An  oppressed  peo 
ple,  as  Curran  said,  will  in  some  way  strike  down  their  oppressors,  even  with 
their  own  shackles. 

All  history  shows  that  such  societies  grow  by  persecution,  and  that  they 
are  the  bitter  fruits  of  tyranny.  Illustrations  rush  to  the  mind  in  throngs. 
The  French  power  trembled  from  secret  societies  in  Algeria,  the  result  of 
harsh  and  unjust  laws.  The  Fenian  societies  are  the  effect  of  long-continued 
English  oppression.  What  is  Nihilism  but  justice,  wildly  protesting  with 
violence  against  hoary  wrong  and  insupportable  despotism?  The  experi 
ments  begun  by  Robert  Fulton,  in  1805,  by  blowing  up  a  buoy  in  Deal 
Harbor,  England,  with  two  torpedoes  filled  with  180  pounds  of  gunpowder, 
and  by  means  of  clock-work,  have  not  only  commanded  the  attention  of  gov 
ernments  since  for  legitimate  warlike  uses,  but  with  the  invention  of  nitro 
glycerine  and  its  adjuncts,  nitro-gelatine,  forcite,  and  giant  powder,  it  has 
made  dynasties  tremble  for  their  injustice  toward  the  people.  Secrecy  and 
chemistry  are  not  justifiable  when  used  for  violent  and  vain  retaliations  ;  but 
they  are,  nevertheless,  the  consequences  of  bad  government.  To  uproot  the 
evils  of  secrecy  and  violence,  a  wise  statesman  will  eradicate  their  proximate 
and  even  remote  causes. 

The  most  conspicuous  illustration,  and  the  one  most  analogous  to  the  Ku- 
Kluxes,  is  that  of  the  Italian  Carbonari.  Their  name  comes  from  carbonaro, 
—  charcoal-burner.  The  remoteness  of  the  charcoal-burning  establishments, 
in  forests  and  amid  mountains,  especially  in  the  Abruzzi,  was  a  pro 
tection  to  their  secrecy.  Their  ritual  was  framed  in  a  wild  language. 
Their  object  was  to  wreak  vengeance  on  their  political  oppressors  ;  or,  as  they 
expressed  it  in  their  symbolic  motto,  "  Revenge  upon  the  wolves  who  de 
vour  the  lambs."  From  those  rude  huts  in  Italy  they  swelled  to  seven  hun 
dred  thousand  under  the  oppressions  of  their  rulers.  People  of  education 
joined  them.  The  growth  of  the  order  alarmed  the  governments  of  Europe, 
especially  the  Bourbons.  After  1819,  they  joined  the  republicans  of  France. 
Men  like  Lafayette  even  joined  the  society.  It  was  the  prolific  parent  of  in 
surrection  everywhere.  In  France  it  numbered  six  hundred  thousand.  It 
was  a  dark  and  constant  protest  against  despotism  and  in  favor  of  liberty. 
The  order  struck  wildly  at  both  religion  and  society.  Men  sought  a  covert  and 
a  refuge  for  their  wrongs,  enthusiasm  for  their  sentiments,  and  immunity  for 
their  political  disaffection.  Poland  is  now,  and  has  been  since  her  spoliation, 
full  of  secret  associations.  From  the  time  of  Ferdinand  VII.  to  the  death  of 
Prim,  and  even  now,  under  her  limited  monarchy,  Spain  is  menaced  with 
them. 


478  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

There  is  a  history  and  mystery  of  horror  about  these  secret  societies  of 
Europe.  Gun,  infernal  machine,  dynamite  and  poniard  are  their  terrible 
playthings.  Their  object  has  been  and  is  to  overthrow,  not  to  substitute. 
They  desire  to  be  rid  of  evils  without  a  thought  of  the  worse  ills  that  may 
come.  They  desire  a  new  birth  of  state  and  society.  They  regard  the  old 
order  as  incapable  of  reformation.  Therefore  they  would  raze  it  and  sow 
salt  on  its  ruins.  They  work  for  its  destruction  with  a  generous  self-sacrifice 
worthy  of  a  better  and  more  open  mode  and  cause.  The  conclusion  from 
these  facts  of  history  is  that  such  societies  are  caused  by  oppression  and 
despotism,  and  that  they  become  more  implacable  and  secret  by  the  sever 
ity  of  the  laws  made  against  them.  These  Carbonari  were  to  the  south  of 
Europe  what  the  Illumines  were  to  France,  the  Tugend-Bund  to  Ger 
many,  the  Fenians  to  Great  Britain  and  the  Ku-Kluxes  to  the  South.  They 
were  at  once  signs  of  reckless  discontent  and  evidences  of  bad  government. 
But,  heedless  of  the  lessons,  Congress  went  on,  piling  severity  upon  coercion, 
as  if  it  designed  to  make  the  South  one  great  protest,  secret,  armed,  and 
dangerous,  against  all  authority. 

Hallam  enumerates  in  his  Constitutional  History  of  England,  five  essen 
tial  checks  upon  the  royal  authority.  Should  there  be  a  lesser  number  in  a 
republic  ?  One  of  these  was  :  no  arrest  without  a  warrant ;  another  :  trial 
by  a  fair  jury  of  the  vicinage,  $er  judicium  parum  et  £er  legem  terrce; 
and  a  third :  that  the  violation  of  personal  liberty  could  be  excused  by  no 
warrant,  not  even  the  direct  order  of  the  king.  In  England  it  was  Sheri 
dan's  boast  that  not  a  hair  of  the  head  could  be  plucked  without  legal  guilt 
upon  legal  proof,  but  could  he  make  his  boast  of  the  English  government  of 
his  own  Irish  people.  Our  Constitution  took  its  growth  from  these  rudi 
ments  of  liberty.  They  are  the  elements  of  Magna  Charta  :  Nullus  liber 
homo  capiatur.  England  grew  great  by  these  elements.  We  observed 
them  sacredly,  and  prospered,  until  these  late  unhappy  times.  Their  in 
fringement  was  the  source  of  the  disorders  South.  Their  infraction  by  the 
force  bill  would  have  brought  renewed  disorders. 

In  concluding  his  remarks  against  the  policy  of  force  and  in  favor  of  that 
of  freedom,  the  author  then  made  this  appeal  to  the  better  element  of  the 
party  in  power,  during  that  struggle  for  the  force  bill  in  1871.  With  this 
extract  he  closes  this  chapter  : 

u  Shall  there,  then,  be  no  attempt  to  crush  these  incendiaries?  Aye,  let 
us  begin  here  in  our  midst.  Are  we  so  guiltless  ?  Have  we  been  moderate 
and  just?  Admitting  our  derelictions,  the  question  returns,  shall  we  allow 
these  societies  to  continue  ?  Do  they  not  loosen  the  bonds  of  security  and 
lead  to  crimes  ?  Shall  they  not  be  eradicated  ?  Yes ;  under  the  forms  of 
law.  Otherwise  they  will  grow  stronger.  Will  you  forever  postpone  gentle 
ways  of  reaching  them  ?  Or  why  will  you  not  leave  them  to  the  states  ? 


PLEA  FOR  MODERATION. 

Do  you  ask  what  is  to  be  done  where  the  state  authorities  have  the  power 
but  not  the  wish  to  crush  them  ? 

"I  answer  that  the  states  will  be  depopulated.  The  states  will  feel  their 
own  neglect  in  every  interest,  and  should  feel  it  till  they  act.  Their  credit 
will  be  impaired  and  their  resources  crippled.  The  greater  the  violence 
the  sooner  it  will  spend  its  force.  Vengeance,  like  the  Corsican  Vendetta, 
-will  meet  with  death,  though  it  track  its  victims  like  a  sleuth-hound.  The 
good  band  against  it.  Better  have  allowed  the  South  to  be  overrun  with  it, 
than  destroy  the  Constitution  by  illegal  methods  for  its  suppression. 

"  Gentlemen,  I  pray  you  to  pause.  You  are  on  the  brink.  Your  legis 
lation  will  rebound.  Save,  oh  !  save  us  the  possible,  probable,  nay,  certain 
horrors  to  follow  the  execution  of  such  laws  by  an  irresponsible  will !  Save 
yourselves  ;  aye,  save  your  party  !  It  has  many  ennobling  memories  ;  it  has 
in  its  midst  many  gallant  men ;  it  has  enrolled  many  splendid  statesmen. 
Many  of  them  have  already  deserted  its  flag,  but  still  you  number  gentlemen, 
statesmen,  and  Christians.  They  ornament  your  ranks.  But  I  beseech  you 
to  remember  that  there  is  no  honor  in  pursuing  with  vengeance  a  discontented 
people.  Cut  yourselves  not  oft'  entirely  from  one-half  of  our  nation  !  You 
would  then  flourish  no  longer ;  for,  as  Brougham  once  said,  l  the  blossom 
dies  when  severed  from  the  root  and  stem.'  Save  your  countiy  as  an  en 
tirety,  that  you  may  continue  to  adorn  it !  Save  the  Constitution,  without 
which  the  Union  is  not  a  band  of  states,  but  the  emblem  of  a  roving  banditti ! 

''Has  that  instrument  lost  all  its  wholesome  terror  ?  Is  it,  like  the  battle-axe 
of  Richard  Coeur  de  Lion,  referred  to  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
(Mr.  Butler),  too  great  for  our  modern  pigmies  to  wield?  Is  it  a  relic  for 
the  sanctuary?  If,  indeed,  it  be  an  object  only  of  reverence  for  what  it  was, 
then  pause  before  you  mutilate  it  further  !  Reverence  its  rust,  if  you  cannot 
respect  its  edge  !  I  make  my  humble  prayer,  first  to  you,  who  have  the  tem 
poral  power  to  stay  your  invasion  of  the  Constitution  and  the  flood-tide  of 
blood,  faction,  and  ruin  to  ensue  from  the  execution  of  this  forceful  act. 
But  if  I  fail  in  this  appeal,  I  then  appeal  to  the  throne  of  God  for  that 
mercy,  in  its  abundance,  which  we  shall  need  when  such  vindictive  legisla 
tion  is  the  law  of  our  land." 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 


THE  RECONSTRUCTION  UNDER  ACTS  OF  CONGRESS. 

FIVE  MILITARY  DISTRICTS  IN  THE  SOUTH  — VIRGINIA  THE  FIRST  DISTRICT  — 
PROVISIONS  OF  THE  LEGISLATION —CALL  ON  THE  PRESIDENT  FOR  INFOR 
MATION—HIS  REPLY— MILITARY  COMMANDERS  — GENERAL  SCHOF1ELD  FOR 
VIRGINIA  — HIS  GENERAL  ORDERS  — SUB-DISTRICT  COMMANDERS  — DIVISION 
OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY  INTO  MODERATES  AND  RADICALS  -INDICTMENT 
OF  HUNNICUTT  FOR  INCENDIARY  LANGUAGE  — THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS  — THE 
VOTE  ON  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION  — GENERAL  STONEMAN  IN  COMMAND  OF 
DISTRICT  — GENERAL  CANBY  SUCCEEDS  HIM  — REMOVALS  FROM  CIVIL  OF 
FICE—ELECTION  OF  GOVERNOR  WALKER  —  VIRGINIA  RECONSTRUCTED  — 
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS. 

THE  Reconstruction  acts  provided  for  the  division  of  the  Southern 
States  into  five  districts,  as  stated  in  a  preceding  chapter.  Virginia 
constituted  the  First  district,  North  and  South  Carolina  the  Second, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida  the  Third,  Mississippi  and  Arkansas 
the  Fourth,  and  Louisiana  and  Texas  the  Fifth  district.  The  President  was 
authorized  and  instructed  to  appoint  an  army  officer,  regular  or  volunteer,  to 
the  command  of  each  district.  When  so  appointed,  their  powers  were  abso 
lute  and  unlimited.  They  were  endowed  with  legislative,  judicial,  and  ex 
ecutive  authority.  The  President  himself  could  give  them  no  directions  or 
instructions.  He  could  only  remove  them  and  appoint  their  successors. 
The  general  commanding  the  armies  had  no  authority  to  approve  or  disap 
prove  any  of  their  acts.  They  could  abolish  charters,  extend  franchises, 
stay  the  collection  of  debts,  and  prohibit  the  foreclosure  of  mortgages,  levy 
taxes,  impose  fines,  and  inflict  penalties,  authorize  the  issue  of  bonds,  and 
the  contraction  of  state  indebtedness,  set  aside  the  decisions  of  the  courts, 
remove  all  officers,  and  fill  all  vacancies,  without  the  form  of  an  election. 
These  district  commanders  could  even  try  persons  by  commissions  selected 
by  themselves.  Fortunately  for  the  people  of  the  South,  the  selection  of 
these  commanders  was  in  the  hands  of  that  pure  patriot  and  honest  man, 


METHOD  OF  RECONSTRUCTION.  481 


Andrew  Johnson.  Under  these  acts,  and  with  these  dictatorial  powers, 
Gen.  John  M.  Schofield  was  appointed  to  the  command  of  the  First  Dis 
trict.  His  headquarters  were  at  Richmond. 

The  act  prescribing  this  method  of  reconstruction  was  passed  over  the 
President's  veto,  March  23,  1867.  It  provided  that  before  the  first  day  of 
September  then  ensuing,  the  commanding  general  in  each  district  should 
cause  a  registration  to  be  made  of  the  male  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upwards,  residing  in  each  county  or  parish  of 
the  state.  This  registration  should  include  only  those  persons  who  were 
qualified  to  vote  for  delegates  under  the  requirements  of  the  act  of  March  2, 
1867.  Before  registration  the  applicant  must  have  taken  and  subscribed  an 
oath  that  he  had  not  been  disfranchised  for  participation  in  any  rebellion 
or  civil  war  against  the  United  States ;  that  he  had  not  held  any  executive 
or  judicial  office  in  any  state  and  afterwards  engaged  in  insurrection  or 
rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  its  enemies ; 
that  he  had  never  taken  an  oath  as  a  member  of  Congress  of  the  United 
States  or  as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a  member  of  any  state  leg 
islature,  or  as  an  executive  or  judicial  officer  of  any  state,  to  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  afterwards  engaged  in  insurrection 
or  rebellion  against  the  United  States,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  its  enemies  ; 
and  that  he  would  faithfully  support  the  Constitution  and  obey  the  laws  of 
the  United  States,  and  would,  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  encourage  others  to  do 
.so.  The  act  also  provided  that,  after  the  completion  of  such  registration,  an 
election  should  be  held  of  delegates  to  a  convention.  This  convention  was 
for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a  constitution  and  civil  government  for  the 
.state.  The  convention  in  each  state  was  to  consist  of  the  same  number  of 
members  as  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  state  legislature  of  such  state 
in  the  year  1860.  They  were  to  be  apportioned  among  the  several  districts, 
Bounties,  or  parishes  in  the  ratio  of  registered  voters,  as  nearly  as  might  be. 
The  convention  in  Virginia  was  to  consist  of  the  same  number  of  delegates 
.as  had  been  in  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  legislature  of  that  state  in 
the  year  1860.  The  counties,  however,  that  constitute  the  State  of  West 
Virginia  had  been  lopped  off. 

Provisions  were  also  made  for  boards  of  registration,  arid  for  the  usual 
machinery  of  an  election.  The  vote  was  to  be  cast  in  the  usual  mode,  by 
the  registered  voters:  "For  a  convention "  and  "Against  a  convention." 
The  act  provided  that  if  a  majority  of  the  votes  given  should  be  in  favor  of 
a.  convention,  the  delegates  should  assemble  at  a  time  and  place  to  be  men 
tioned  in  the  notification.  They  should  then  proceed  to  frame  a  constitu 
tion  and  civil  government.  When  this  was  done,  the  constitution  should  be 
:submitted  by  the  convention  for  ratification  to  the  registered  voters,  at  an 
election  to  be  conducted  by  officers  or  persons  to  be  appointed  by  the  com 
manding  general.  It  also  provided  that  if  the  constitution  should  be  ratified 


482  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

by  a  majority  of  the  qualified  and  registered  voters,  the  president  of  the 
convention  should  transmit  a  copy  thereof  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  to  be  by  him  transmitted  to  Congress.  If  it  should  appear  to  Con 
gress  that  the  election  was  one  at  which  all  the  registered  and  qualified 
voters  in  the  state  had  an  opportunity  to  vote  freely  and  without  restraint, 
fear,  or  the  influence  of  fraud,  and  that  the  constitution  met  the  approval  of 
a  majority  of  all  the  qualified  electors  in  the  state,  and  was  in  conformity 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Reconstruction  act,  then  such  constitution  should 
be  approved  by  Congress.  The  state  should  then  be  declared  entitled  to- 
representation.  Senators  and  Representatives  therefrom  should  be  admitted 
to  Congress.  All  elections  were  to  be  by  ballot.  The  registers  and  poll- 
keepers  were  required  to  take  the  test  oath  of  July  2,  1862,  — the  "  iron-clad 
oath."  It  subjected  to  the  pains  and  penalties  of  perjury  any  of  them  who 
took  it  falsely. 

The  act  of  March  n,  1868,  which  was  amendatory  of  the  acts  of  March, 
1867,  became  a  law  by  lapse  of  time,  the  President  neither  signing  it  nor 
returning  it  with  his  objections.  It  had  passed  the  Senate  on  the  25th  of 
February,  by  a  vote  of  twenty-eight  yeas  to  six  nays.  It  had  passed  the 
House  on  the  next  day  by  a  vote  of  ninety-six  yeas  to  thirty-two  nays.  It 
provided  that  any  election  authorized  by  the  act  of  March  23,  1867,  should1 
be  decided  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  actually  cast ;  and  that  at  an  election 
in  which  the  question  of  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  any  state  constitution 
was  submitted,  any  person  duly  registered  in  the  state  might  vote  in  the 
election  district  where  he  offered  to  vote,  provided  he  had  resided  therein  for 
ten  days  next  preceding  the  election.  It  also  provided  that  the  constitutional 
convention  of  any  of  the  states  mentioned  might  provide  that  at  the  time  of 
voting  upon  the  ratification  of  the  constitution  the  registered  voters  might 
also  vote  for  Representatives  in  Congress,  and  for  all  elective  officers  provided 
for  by  such  constitution.  The  original  acts  of  reconstruction  required  the 
ratification  of  the  constitution  by  majorities  of  the  registered  voters.  But  this 
rule  was  changed  by  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  March  n,  1868.  It  pro 
vided  that  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  should  determine  the  question.  The 
clause  allowing  voters  to  cast  their  ballots  in  any  district  where  they  had 
resided  for  ten  days  was  conceived  with  the  motive  of  securing  ratification. 
This  regulation  admitted  of  the  transfer  of  supernumerary  voters  from  one 
district  to  another,  in  which  their  services  might  be  needed.  There  could 
be  no  difficulty  in  effecting  such  transfers  of  the  freedmen,  with  the  ample 
powers  possessed  by  the  army  and  by  the  Freedmen's  Bureau.  The  last 
clause  of  the  act  provided  for  the  election  of  governors,  members  of  the  leg 
islature,  and  Representatives  in  Congress,  not  as  the  state  constitutions  might 
provide,  but  as  prescribed  by  an  act  of  Congress. 

The  conventions  in  some  of  the  states  made  suffrage  universal.  They 
thereby  enfranchised  the  numerous  classes  which  were,  by  the  Reconstruction. 


THE  AMENDATORY  ACT  OF  1868.  483 

acts,  excluded  from  registration.  But  this  act  of  March  n,  1868,  authorized 
the  district  commanders  to  cheat  these  classes  out  of  their  rights  by  ordering 
an  election  of  congressmen  and  state  officers  on  the  same  day  that  the  votes 
were  given  for  ratification  or  rejection  of  the  constitution,  and  by  the  same 
registered  voters  and  no  others.  No  ingenuity  could  reconcile  this  act  and  the 
proceedings  under  it  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  with 
those  of  the  states.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares  that  "the 
House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed  of  members  chosen  every  second 
year  by  the  people  of  the  several  states  ;  and  the  electors  in  each  state  shall 
have  the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of 
the  state  legislature."  It  was,  therefore,  nothing  else  than  rank  usurpation 
for  Congress  to  say  who  should  elect  state  officers.  The  persons  thus 
chosen  had  no  legitimate  authority.  The  so-called  legislatures  thus  elected 
by  a  part  of  the  people  designated  and  qualified  by  act  of  Congress,  were 
mere  popular  or  party  conventions.  They  had  no  right  to  contract  debts,  to 
impose  taxes,  or  to  make  laws  for  the  states  which  were  subjected  to  their 
rule  by  external  force.  Neither  were  the  men  who  were  elected  to  Congress 
by  the  registered  voters,  to  the  exclusion  of  thousands  who  were  qualified  by 
the  new  constitutions,  duly  elected  members  of  that  body.  Congress  had  no 
more  authority  to  say  that  a  part  of  the  voters  in  a  Southern  state  might  choose 
representatives,  than  it  had  to  apply  the  same  rule  to  Massachusetts  or  New- 
York. 

On  the  3d  of  July,  1867,  the  Senate  adopted  a  resolution  requesting  the 
President  to  communicate  copies  of  all  orders,  instructions,  circular  letters 
or  letters  of  advice  issued  to  the  respective  military  officers  assigned  to  the 
several  military  districts  under  the  act  of  March  2,  1867.  It  also  required 
him  to  communicate  copies  of  all  opinions  given  by  the  Attorney-General 
of  the  United  States  touching  the  construction  and  interpretation  of  such 
acts.  Copies  were  called  for  of  all  correspondence  relating  to  the  opera 
tion,  construction  or  execution  of  such  acts,  between  the  President  and  any  of 
such  military  commanders,  between  him  and  the  general  of  the  army,  be 
tween  the  general  of  the  army  and  any  of  the  commanders  touching  the 
same  subjects ;  also  copies  of  all  orders  issued  by  any  of  such  commanders 
in  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  the  acts.  The  President  was  also  requested 
to  inform  the  Senate  as  to  the  progress  made  in  the  matter  of  registration 
under  such  acts,  and  whether  the  appropriation  for  that  purpose  was  probably 
sufficient. 

This  resolution  of  the  Senate  was  conceived  in  the  same  want  of  confi 
dence  in  the  President  of  the  United  States  that  inspired  the  act  of  July  19, 
to  which  reference  has  already  been  made.  That  act  substituted  the  com 
mander  of  the  army  for  the  Executive  of  the  Nation.  The  President  replied 
to  this  resolution  on  July  15.  He  stated  that  the  appropriation  of  half  a 
million  of  dollars  for  carrying  the  acts  of  reconstruction  into  effect  had 


484  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

already  been  expended,  and  that  over  a  million  arid  a  half  was  required  for 
immediate  use.  It  was  exceedingly  difficult,  he  said,  to  estimate  the  proba 
ble  expense  of  carrying  into  effect  these  Reconstruction  acts.  If  the  existing 
governments  of  ten  states  were  to  be  deposed  and  their  entire  machinery 
was  to  be  placed  under  the  exclusive  authority  of  the  district  commanders, 
all  the  expenditures  incident  to  the  administration  of  such  governments 
must  necessarily  be  incurred  by  the  Federal  Government.  He  estimated 
that  the  necessary  expenditure,  in  addition  to  what  had  already  been  ex 
pended,  would  not  be  less  than  fourteen  millions  of  dollars.  He  expressed 
the  opinion  that  the  cost  of  the  administration  of  affairs  by  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  in  these  ten  states  would  exceed  that  amount,  and  that  the  abolition 
of  the  state  governments  would  make  the  Federal  Government  responsible  for 
the  state  debts  created  before  the  rebellion  for  laudable  purposes  of  public  im 
provement.  These  debts  amounted  to  about  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars. 
"Was  it,"  he  asked,  "worthy  of  the  consideration  of  Congress,  whether 
such  an  addition  to  the  national  obligations  would  or  would  not  impair  the 
public  credit?"  Would  not  a  refusal  to  assume  the  debts  of  those  states  after 
overthrowing  their  governments  be  viewed  as  a  violation  of  good  faith  and 
as  a  repudiation  by  the  National  Legislature  of  liabilities  which  the  states  had 
justly  and  legally  incurred  ?  It  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  the  President 
that  the  same  doubts  or  questions  might  have  arisen  in  the  minds  of  the 
creditors  of  those  states  in  1865,  when  he  took  the  lead  in  overthrowing 
their  governments.  In  addition  to  this  general  information,  the  President 
transmitted  to  the  Senate  the  required  correspondence. 

General  Schofield  assumed  the  command  of  the  First  district,  constituting 
the  State  of  Virginia,  on  the  i3th  of  March,  1867.  In  his  general  order  of 
that  date,  he  announced  that  all  officers  under  the  existing  provisional  gov 
ernment  of  the  State  of  Virginia  would  continue  to  perform  the  duties  of 
their  respective  offices,  unless  otherwise  ordered  in  individual  cases,  until 
their  successors  were  duly  elected  and  qualified  in  accordance  with  the  act 
of  Congress  of  March  2,  1867.  It  was  desirable  (he  said)  that  the  military 
authority  should  be  exercised  only  so  far  as  might  be  necessary  to  accomplish 
the  objects  for  which  that  power  was  conferred.  He  appealed  to  the  people 
of  Virginia,  and  especially  to  magistrates  and  other  civil  officers,  to  render 
the  necessity  for  the  exercise  of  military  power  as  slight  as  possible,  by  strict 
obedience  to  the  laws  and  by  the  impartial  administration  of  justice  to  all 
classes. 

This  general  order,  like  others  issued  by  General  Schofield,  does  honor 
to  his  head  and  heart.  It  shows  that,  like  General  Hancock  in  Texas,  he 
took  a  statesmanlike  view  of  the  duties  assigned  to  him.  Other  general  or 
ders  were  issued  by  him  from  time  to  time.  Among  them  was  one  of  April 
20.  It  decreed  that  temporary  appointments  to  fill  vacancies  occurring  in 


ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  FIRST  DISTRICT.  485 

county  or  city  offices  should  be  made  upon  the  concurrent  recommendations 
of  the  county  court  or  city  council,  and  of  the  president  of  the  Board  of  Reg 
istration.  It  requested  the  county  courts  and  city  councils  to  confer  with  the 
presidents  of  the  Boards  of  Registration  concerning  such  appointments,  and 
to  agree  upon  suitable  persons  to  fill  them.  These  recommendations  were 
to  be  forwarded  to  the  assistant  adjutant-general.  If  the  county  court  was 
not  in  session,  then  five  magistrates  might  make  such  recommendations. 

The  following  warning,  given  to  a  Richmond  newspaper,  by  the  direction 
of  so  mild  a  chieftain  as  General  Schofield,  will  illustrate  the  unwisdom  of 
the  leaders  of  public  opinion  in  the  South  at  this  time : 

HEADQUARTERS  FIRST  DISTRICT,  STATE  OF  VIRGINIA,  ) 
RICHMOND,  VA.,  April  27,  1867.  } 

Mr.  Chas.  H.    Winne,  Proprietor  of  the  Richmond  Times : 

SIR  :  The  commanding  general  directs  me  to  call  your  attention  to  an 
editorial  article  in  the  Richmond  Times  of  this  morning,  headed  "  A  Black 
Man's  Party  in  Virginia,"  and  to  say  that,  while  he  desires  not  only  to  per 
mit,  but  to  encourage,  the  utmost  freedom  of  discussion  of  political  questions, 
the  character  of  the  article  referred  to  calls  for  severe  censure.  The  follow 
ing  words :  "  It  is  a  proposition  which  implies  that  they  are  ready  to  grasp 
the  blood-stained  hands  of  the  authors  of  our  ruin,"  is  an  intolerable  insult 
to  all  soldiers  of  the  United  States  Army ;  and  no  less  so  to  all  true  soldiers 
of  the  late  Confederate  army,  as  they  have  long  since  extended  to  each  other 
the  cordial  hand  of  friendship  and  pledged  their  united  efforts  to  restore 
peace  and  harmony  to  our  whole  country.  The  efforts  of  your  paper  ta 
foster  enmity,  create  disorder,  and  lead  to  violence,  can  no  longer  be  toler 
ated.  It  is  hoped  this  warning  will  be  sufficient. 

An  order  of  May  28  declared  that,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  adequate 
protection  to  all  persons  in  their  rights  of  person  and  property  in  cases  where 
the  civil  authorities  might  fail,  from  whatever  cause,  to  give  such  protection ; 
and  in  order  to  insure  the  prompt  suppression  of  insurrection,  disorder,  and 
violence,  military  commissioners,  to  be  selected  from  the  officers  of  the  army 
and  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  would  be  appointed  and  given  jurisdiction 
in  sub-districts,  to  be  defined  in  the  orders  appointing  them.  These  officers 
were  to  have  a  sufficient  military  force  to  execute,  or  to  secure  the  execution 
of,  their  orders.  They  were  clothed  with  the  authority  of  magistrates  in  the 
counties,  and  of  police  magistrates  in  the  cities.  They  were  to  be  governed 
in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  by  the  laws  of  Virginia,  so  far  as  the  same 
were  not  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  They  were  to 
report  to  the  district  commander  each  case  of  which  they  took  jurisdiction, 
and  their  disposition  of  it.  Where  parties  were  held  for  trial,  a  full  state 
ment  of  the  facts  was  to  be  reported,  so  as  to  enable  the  district  commander 
to  decide  whether  the  case  should  be  tried  by  military  commission  or  by  the 
civil  courts.  The  latter  mode  of  trial  was  to  be  preferred  in  every  case 


486  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

where  there  was  satisfactory  reason  to  believe  that  justice  would  be  done. 
Any  person  who  should  disobey  or  resist  the  lawful  orders  or  authority  of  a 
military  commissioner  was  to  be  tried  by  a  military  commission,  and  punished 
by  fine  and  imprisonment,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  offense.  The  State 
of  Virginia  was  divided  into  seven  sub-districts  by  General  Order  No.  33. 
The  sub-district  commanders  were  required  to  exercise  a  general  supervision 
over  their  subordinate  military  commissioners  within  their  respective  dis 
tricts.  The  commissioned  officers  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  were  appointed 
commissioners  in  the  several  counties.  They  were  required  to  report  to  the 
sub-district  commanders.  The  sub-districts  were  arranged  as  follows  : 

Sub-district  of  Richmond,  Brevet  Maj.-Gen.  R.  S.  Granger  in  command, 
with  headquarters  at  Richmond. 

Sub-district  of  Fortress  Monroe,  Lieut. -Col.  George  Gibson,  Jr.,  in  com 
mand,  with  headquarters  at  Fortress  Monroe. 

Sub-district  of  Petersburg,  Brevet  Maj.-Gen.  George  Stoneman  in  com 
mand,  with  headquarters  at  Prospect  Station,  Prince  Edward's  County. 

Sub-district  of  Lynchburg,  Brevet  Maj.-Gen.  O.  B.  Wilcox  in  command, 
with  headquarters  at  Lynchburg. 

Sub-district  of  Winchester,  Brevet  Lieut. -Col.  W.  S.  Franklin  in  com 
mand,  with  headquarters  at  Winchester. 

Sub-district  of  Alexandria,  Maj.  Joseph  Stewart  in  command,  with  head 
quarters  at  Alexandria. 

Sub-district  of  Fredericksburg,  Brevet  Lieut. -Col.  James  Johnson  in 
command,  with  headquarters  at  Fredericksburg. 

A  board  of  five  officers  was  appointed  by  the  commander  of  the  district 
to  select  persons  to  form  boards  of  registration  throughout  the  district.  An 
army  officer  was  to  be  selected  as  a  member  of  each  board.  The  other 
members  were  to  be  taken  from  honorably  discharged  volunteers,  and  from 
•citizens  who  were  not  only  loyal  at  the  time,  but  who  had  always  been  loyal 
to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  Certainly  there  was  not  more  than 
one  in  ten  thousand  of  this  latter  class  in  Virginia.  The  practical  effect  of 
the  requirement  —  which  was  in  strict  conformity  with  the  Reconstruction 
acts  —  was  to  give  the  appointments  as  registers  to  United  States  officers 
and  discharged  soldiers. 

By  a  general  order  of  May  14,  an  association  of  colored  men  in  Rich 
mond,  styled  "The  Lincoln  Mounted  Guard,"  was  directed  to  lay  aside 
•entirely  its  military  character.  Its  members  were  forbidden  to  parade  or  to 
appear  in  the  streets  in  uniform  with  arms  of  any  kind,  or  with  field  music, 
or  to  assemble  in  any  place  for  the  purpose  of  parade  or  drill.  They  were 
notified  that  they  must  in  all  respects  maintain  a  purely  civic  character. 

A  general  order  was  issued  July  26,  requiring  sub-district  commanders  to 
report  for  the  action  of  the  commanding  general  the  cases  of  all  state, 
•county,  and  municipal  officers  who  were  disloyal  to  the  government  of  the 


QUALIFICATIONS  OF  VOTERS.  487 

United  States,  or  who  used  their  official  influence  in  any  manner  to  hinder, 
delay,  prevent,  or  obstruct  the  due  and  proper  administration  of  the  acts  of 
Congress.  Vacancies  in  such  offices  were  to  be  rilled  by  temporary  appoint 
ment,  to  be  made  by  the  commanding  general.  All  who  were  appointed 
were  to  be  required  to  take  the  test  oath  of  July  2,  1862.  The  governor, 
courts  of  law,  and  city  authorities  were  invited  to  recommend  suitable  per- 
.sons  for  such  appointments.  Another  order  of  the  same  date  amended  a 
former  instruction  to  registrars.  It  excluded  from  registration,  the  governor, 
lieutenant-governor,  secretary  of  state,  auditor  of  public  accounts,  second 
auditor,  register  of  the  land  office,  state  treasurer,  attorney-general,  sheriffs, 
sergeants  of  a  city  or  town,  commissioners  of  the  revenue,  county  surveyors, 
constables,  overseers  of  the  poor,  commissioners  of  boards  of  public  works, 
judges  of  the  supreme  court,  judges  of  the  circuit  courts,  the  judge  of  the 
court  of  hustings,  justices  of  the  county  courts,  mayors,  recorders  and  alder 
men,  coroners,  escheaters,  inspectors  of  tobacco,  flour,  etc.,  clerks  of  the 
•supreme,  district,  circuit  and  county  courts,  and  of  the  court  of  hustings,  and 
attorneys  for  the  commonwealth.  Not  only  were  these  officers  excluded, 
but  all  persons  who  had  at  any  time  in  former  years  filled  the  like  offices 
•were  excluded  from  the  right  to  register  and  to  vote.  Of  county  officers 
there  were  thousands  either  in  service  or  on  the  retired  list.  The  justices 
of  the  peace  were  not  compensated  with  fees  for  their  services  ;  but  as  they 
were  exempted,  ex  officio,  from  mustering  with  the  militia,  from  working  on 
the  roads,  and  from  serving  on  juries,  these  offices  had  been  sought  after  and 
distributed  by  the  governor  with  a  liberal  hand  and  with  little  regard  to  the 
public  needs.  There  was  also  a  constable  for  every  magistrate,  or  at  least 
for  every  magistrate  who  had  much  business  to  do.  Besides  these  persons, 
all  others  were  excluded  from  the  right  to  register  and  vote  who  had  in  any 
•capacity  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
afterwards  joined  the  Confederates.  In  this  class  were  army  and  navy 
officers,  members  of  Congress,  members  of  the  state  legislature,  postmas 
ters,  and,  perhaps,  attorney s-at-law.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  therefore, 
that  the  returns  of  the  tax-lists  showed  that  there  were  nearly  twenty  thou 
sand  more  white  male  adults  taxed  than  were  registered. 

A  general  order  dated  September  12,  announced  that  an  election  would 
be  held  for  delegates  to  a  state  convention  to  frame  a  constitution,  and  to 
test  the  sense  of  the  registered  voters  upon  the  question  whether  such  con 
vention  should  be  held.  The  election  was  fixed  for  the  22d  of  October. 
Regulations  were  made  for  it  in  conformity  with  the  acts  of  Congress.  The 
first  registration  of  qualified  voters  showed  that  there  were  in  the  State  of 
Virginia  115,068  white  voters,  and  101,382  colored  voters.  But  it  hap 
pened  in  the  apportionment  of  representation,  that  only  forty-seven  election 
districts  contained  white  majorities,  while  fifty-eight  election  districts  con 
tained  colored  majorities.  In  a  note  to  the  official  report,  this  anomaly  is 


488  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

explained  by  the  statement  that  the  white  majorities  in  the  western  counties 
were  very  large,  while  the  colored  majorities  in  the  eastern  counties  were 
comparatively  small.     A  second  registration  showed  118,011  white  voters 
and  104,891  colored  voters.     The  election  resulted,  of  course,  in  the  choice 
of  a  large  majority   of  Republican  delegates,  and  in  favor  of  holding  the 
convention.     On  this  last  point  the  vote  cast  amounted  to  169,229,  of  which 
76,084  were  cast  by  white  men,  and  93,145  by  the  blacks.     The  vote  for  a 
convention  was  107,342,  and  against  a  convention  61,887.      Of  the  white 
voters  14,835  were  for  a  convention.     If  all  the  registered  whites  had  voted 
there  would  still  have  been  a  small  majority  in  favor  of  the  convention.     It 
is  probable  that  an  active  campaign  on  their  part  would  have  prevented  so 
large  a  defection  from  their  ranks  as  actually  took  place.     Of  the  105  dele 
gates   chosen,   seventy  were    "  Republicans,"   and   thirty-five   were    "  con 
servatives  "  ;  and  of  the  seventy  Republicans,  twenty-five  were  colored  men. 
The  Virginia  Republicans,  soon  after  the  enfranchisement  of  the  negroesr 
became  divided  between  the  men  of  moderate  and  men  of  radical  views. 
The  latter  constituted  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  party.      John  M. 
Botts,  a  man  of  talent  and  a  Unionist,  well  known  to  politics  from  the  time 
of  President  Tyler,  was  the  leader  of  the  moderates.     He  had  been  impris 
oned  in  Richmond  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  on  account  of  his  outspoken 
devotion  to  the  Union.     But  his  eloquence  could  make  no  headway  against 
the  surging  tide  of  radicalism.    It  was  led  by  one  James  W.  Hunnicutt.    He 
was  the  sparkling  phosphorescence  of  its  topmost  wave.     The  first  meeting 
of  the  party  after  the  passage  of  the  Reconstruction  acts  was  held  in  Rich 
mond  on  the  1 7th  of  April,  1867.     The  resolutions  adopted  on  that  occasion 
were  not  of  an  extreme  character.    But,  in  the  counties,  such  meetings  were 
signalized  by  utterances  that  were  well  calculated  to  excite  the  white  people 
in  a  high  degree.     Mr.  Botts  proposed  a  meeting  of  the  conservative  Union- 
men  of  Charlotteville  on  the  4th  of  July.     But  at  a  meeting  on  the  i2th 
of  June,  called  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about  harmony  between  the  two 
wings  of  the  party,  it  was  agreed  to  hold  a  convention  at  Richmond  on  the 
ist  of  August.      At   the  preliminary  meeting,  Senator  Henry  Wilson,   of 
Massachusetts,  and  Mr.  John  Jay,   of  New- York,  were  present,  with  Mr. 
Botts  and  Mr.  Hunnicutt.     When  the  so-called  convention  assembled,  there 
was  such  a  crowd  of  negroes  in  it  that  Mr.  Botts  and  his  friends  decided  to 
take  no  part  in  it.       Hunnicutt  had  gathered  his  crowd  from  the  highways 
and  by-ways  of  Richmond  and  other  towns.     The  assembly  had  no  claims 
to  be  recognized  as  a  representative  body.      This  charge  was  made  against 
it,  even  by  a  colored  speaker.    The  convention,  or  crowd,  after  getting  to  the 
park,  adopted,  without  alteration,  the  resolution  that  had  been  adopted  at  the 
meeting  of  April  17.     The  next  day  there  was  a  public  meeting  in  the  park. 
It  was  addressed  by  Mr.  Botts.      The  conservatives  appear   to  have  suc 
cumbed  to  the  dominant  element. 


THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION.  489 

In  the  month  of  November  following,  Hunnicutt  was  arrested  on  the 
charge  of  having  used  incendiary  language  in  a  speech  to  the  colored  peo 
ple  of  Charles  City  County.  The  language  charged  in  the  indictment  was, 
44  you  [the  colored  people]  have  no  property.  The  white  race  have  houses 
and  lands.  Some  of  you  are  old  and  feeble,  and  cannot  carry  the  musket ; 
but  you  can  apply  the  torch  to  the  dwellings  of  your  enemies.  There  are 
none  too  young.  The  boy  of  ten  and  the  girl  of  twelve  can  apply  the 
torch."  Hunnicutt  denied  the  charge.  He  was  a  delegate  to  the  constitu 
tional  convention ;  but,  by  order  of  General  Schofield,  he  was  bound  over 
in  a  bond  of  $5,000,  to  appear  before  the  Charles  City  County  court,  ten  days 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  convention. 

The  constitutional  convention  met  in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Delegates, 
in  Richmond,  Nov.  3,  1867.  Judge  John  C.  Underwood,  of  the  United 
States  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  district  of  Virginia,  was  elected  presi 
dent.  After  the  election  of  officers  and  the  appointment  of  committees,  it 
took  a  recess  till  the  2d  of  January,  1868.  It  then  continued  in  session  till 
the  i  yth  of  April,  when  it  finally  adjourned.  It  adopted  a  state  constitu 
tion,  but  made  no  provision  for  submitting  it  to  a  vote  of  the  people. 
There  was  a  well-founded  apprehension  that  the  people  would  reject  it. 

The  bill  of  rights  adopted  by  the  convention  declared  the  freedom  of  all 
men,  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  ;  it  prohibited  slavery,  and  declared  for 
equal  rights  and  privileges.  All  this  was  well.  It  met  universal  assent. 
But  the  clauses  relating  to  the  right  of  suffrage  and  to  a  test  oath  caused  a 
warm  debate  in  the  convention,  and  led  to  a  division  among  the  Republi 
cans,  which  proved  fatal  to  the  ascendancy  of  that  party  in  the  state.  The 
first  section  of  the  third  article  provided  for  the  disfranchisement  of  all 
classes  of  persons  who  were  excluded  from  the  right  to  vote  for  delegates  to 
the  convention.  All  who  had,  prior  to  the  war,  held  any  civil  office  and 
had  participated  in  the  rebellion  were  embraced  in  this  formidable  list 
of  the  excluded  from  political  privileges.  By  the  seventh  section  of  the  same 
article,  all  the  higher  state  officers,  including  members  of  the  legisla 
ture,  were  required  to  take  and  subscribe  the  test  oath,  or  "  iron-clad,"  of 
July  2,  1862.  The  effect  of  this  would  have  been  to  exclude  almost  every 
competent  Virginian  from  office.  On  this  head,  General  Stoneman,  who 
succeeded  General  Schofield  as  commander  of  the  First  district  at  Rich 
mond,  stated  in  his  report  of  the  3ist  of  October,  1868,  that,  in  appoint 
ments  made  by  his  predecessor,  the  available  material — that  to  which  he 
was  restricted  by  the  Reconstruction  acts — had  been  nearly  exhausted.  A 
vacancy  on  the  bench  had  to  be  filled  by  an  army  officer.  This  instance 
was  cited  to  show  the  impossibility  of  carrying  on  the  state  government  in 
the  event  of  the  thousands  of  state  officers  suddenly  ceasing  to  perform 
their  functions.  Their  places  could  not  be  filled  under  the  provisions  of 
the  reconstruction  laws. 

31 


49°  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Virginia  was  fortunate  in  having  such  a  military  dictator  as  General 
Stoneman  in  her  most  critical  stage  of  reconstruction.  He  rilled  a  large  part 
in  the  military  relations  of  that  time.  He  was  only  next  to  General  Hancock. 
He  was  born  on  the  shores  of  Chautauqua  Lake,  in  western  New  York,  on 
the  Sth  of  August,  in  the  year  1822.  He  is  of  the  Teutonic  race,  as  his  name 
indicates.  He  is  the  eldest  of  a  family  of  ten  children.  His  early  years 
were  passed  on  his  father's  farm,  and  in  the  lumber  camp.  His  life  is  note 
worthy  in  many  regards.  From  the  year  of  his  West  Point  graduation,  in 
1846,  to  1853,  he  served  with  his  company  of  dragoons  on  the  Pacific  slope. 
He  made  the  first  government  survey  for  a  railroad  across  the  continent.  It 
was  substantially  adopted  by  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad.  In  1855,  rie 
was  a  captain  in  the  Second  cavalry  ;  with  him  in  that  regiment  were  Albert 
Sidney  Johnston,  Robert  E.  Lee,  George  H.  Thomas,  W.  J.  Hardee,  Earl 
Van  Dorn,  E.  K.  Smith,  John  B.  Hood,  and  others  of  lesser  note.  Captain 
Stoneman  spent  two  years  in  Europe  before  the  war.  He  availed  himself 
of  the  opportunity  to  study  foreign  armies,  and  more  especially  their  cavalry 
service.  The  Civil  War  found  him  on  the  Rio  Grande.  He  was  guarding 
the  frontier  of  Texas  against  the  incursions  of  Mexican  bandits  and  plun 
derers.  Refusing  to  recognize  the  authority  of  General  Twiggs,  then  in 
command  of  Texas,  to  surrender  the  troops  under  his  command,  Captain 
Stoneman  seized  a  steamer,  and  escaped  with  his  company.  He  reached 
Washington  in  time  to  lead  the  cavalry  advance  guard  across  Long  Bridge, 
on  the  memorable  night  of  May  23,  1861. 

Upon  the  assignment  of  General  McClellan  to  the  command  of  the  Army 
of  the  Potomac,  Captain  Stoneman  was  appointed  by  the  President  brigadier- 
general  and  chief-of-cavalry.  Under  General  Burnside,  he  commanded  the 
Third  Army  Corps,  and  under  General  Hooker,  he  was  promoted  to  major- 
general.  Unlike  McClellan,  Hooker  appreciated  the  value  of  cavalry.  He 
therefore  assigned  Stoneman  the  duty  of  organizing  what  soon  became  the 
famous  cavalry  corps  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac.  Stoneman's  cavalry 
battles  and  raids  are  the  most  thrilling  incidents  of  the  war.  Shortly  after 
the  battle  of  Gettysburg,  the  Secretary  of  War  determined  to  establish  a  cav 
alry  bureau  in  the  War  Department,  for  the  purchase  and  distribution  of  all 
the  horses  for  the  whole  army,  this  duty  having  been,  up  to  that  time,  per 
formed  by  the  Quartermaster  Department.  General  Stoneman  was  called 
to  Washington  to  organize  it.  By  his  request,  he  was  soon  relieved  from 
the  duty,  and  assigned  to  the  command  of  the  Twenty-third  Army  Corps, 
then  in  east  Tennessee.  Upon  the  reorganization  of  General  Sherman's  army, 
he  was  assigned  to  the  ^cavalry  command.  He  held  this  command  until  the 
capture  of  Atlanta.  After  that,  he  was  engaged  in  several  successful  expedi 
tions  in  Virginia,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  North  Carolina.  At  the  time 
of  the  surrender  of  Lee's  army,  Stoneman,  with  his  command,  was  at  Salis 
bury,  North  Carolina.  He  was  in  complete  possession  of  Lee's  communi 
cations  with  the  rear.  The  bridges  were  burned  and  the  tracks  destroyed. 


REMOVAL  OF  OFFICE-HOLDERS.  491 

To  the  credit  of  General  Stoneman,  be  it  said,  that  during  his  command 
of  the  First  district,  he  never  exercised  the  authority  with  which  he  was 
clothed,  when  there  was  any  law  of  the  State  of  Virginia  governing  the  case, 
or  applicable  to  the  question  involved.  He  referred  all  such  cases  to  the  in 
vestigation  and  determination  of  the  courts.  His  administration  of  the  affairs 
of  the  state  was  eminently  conservative.  It  was  satisfactory  to  the  people. 
Dissatisfaction  was  expressed  only  by  the  "carpet-baggers."  Their  princi 
pal  causes  for  complaint  were  that  he  did  not  make  places  for  them  to  fill ; 
that  he  did  not  appoint  negroes  to  offices,  and  that  he  did  not  make  the 
people  of  Virginia  sufficiently  anxious  to  get  back  into  the  Union.  To  ap 
pease  those  creatures  and  satisfy  their  demands,  President *G rant  found  it  ex 
pedient  to  relieve  General  Stoneman  from  the  command  of  the  district.  He 
sent  him  to  Arizona.  It  was  then  the  Botany  Bay  of  the  army.  There  he 
served  until,  by  his  own  request,  he  was  put  upon  the  retired  list  in  1872. 
Since  then  he  has  filled  the  position  of  Railroad  Commissioner  of  California. 
At  the  last  general  election  in  that  state,  he  was  elected  governor  for  four 
years.  His  majority  was  unprecedented.  Governor  Stoneman,  considering 
the  hardships  and  exposures  he  endured  in  the  service  of  his  country,  is 
physically  well  preserved.  He  is  six  feet  tall,  and  of  proportionate  weight. 
He  has  strongly-marked  features.  He  is  erect  in  carriage,  and  has  that  fine 
military  presence  peculiar  to  the  beau  ideal  cavalry  commander.  No  officer 
of  the  army  has  filled  more  varied,  or  more  delicate  and  responsible  positions. 
He  is  a  soldier  who  has  been  always  a  citizen.  He  is  a  citizen.  He  is  one 
of  the  very  few  officers  of  the  regular  army  who  have  been  elected  by  the 
people  governor  of  a  state.  He  well  deserves  to  wear  the  civic  crown. 

A  joint  resolution  passed  by  Congress  in  February,  1868,  provided 
that  the  persons  then  holding  civil  offices  in  Virginia  and  Texas,  who  could 
not  take  the  test  oath,  should  be  removed,  and  that  the  vacancies  thus 
created  should  be  filled  by  the  appointment  of  persons  who  could  take  it. 
General  Stoneman  issued  an  order  on  the  i6th  of  March  following,  announc 
ing  the  removal  of  the  civil  officers  banned  by  this  joint  resolution.  Within 
a  week  following,  he  reported  to  the  Attorney-General  at  Washington  that, 
of  the  5^446  civil  offices  in  the  state,  2,504  had  been  filled  by  his  predecessor, 
General  Schofield,  and  himself;  and  that,  of  the  remainder,  329  incumbents 
could  take  the  test  oath,  leaving  still  2,613  vacancies  to  be  filled.  These 
facts  demonstrated  the  impolicy  of  the  course  pursued  by  Congress.  If  any 
of  the  5,446  office-holders  in  the  state  had  refused  to  perform  their  duties,  it 
would  have  been  quite  easy  to  find  others  ready  and  competent  to  take  their 
places.  There  could  be  no  necessity  for  the  disfranchisement  of  the  whole 
intelligent  population  of  the  state.  The  effect  of  the  measures  was  to  put 
a  premium  on  political  prostitution  and  perjury.  It  invited  to  the  South  a 
horde  of  hungry  adventurers,  who  robbed  and  oppressed  the  people  in  the 
name  of  freedom  and  Union,  and  who  ruined  the  public  finances  in  the 


492  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

name  of  philanthropy  and  progress.  Among  the  removals  from  civil  office 
was  that  of  H.  H.  Wells,  the  governor.  The  removal  was  not  made  on 
the  ground  of  Mr.  Wells'  inability  to  take  the  test-oath.  No  such  inability 
existed.  Governor  Wells  was  removed  because,  under  the  reconstruction 
laws,  all  the  powers  of  the  chief  executive  of  the  state  devolved  on  the  com 
manding  officer  of  the  First  military  district,  by  whom  they  were  assumed, 
and  would  be  performed.  General  Stoneman  was  shortly  afterwards  re 
moved  from  the  command  of  the  First  district,  and  General  Canby  was 
assigned  to  it.  Until  the  arrival  of  the  latter  officer,  Gen.  Alexander  S. 
Webb  was  to  act  as  commander.  General  Webb's  earliest  official  acts  were 
to  restore  Mr.  Wells  to  the  office  of  governor,  and  to  proceed  to  fill  the  vacan 
cies  in  the  civil  offices  by  the  appointment  thereto  of  army  officers.  In 
restoring  the  civil  governor,  he  violated  General  Grant's  order  of  March  20, 
1867. 

General  Canby  assumed  command  of  the  First  district  of  Virginia  on 
the  20th  of  April,  1869.  On  the  2ist  of  May,  he  issued  an  order  for  an 
election  for  the  ratification  or  rejection  of  the  state  constitution  which  had 
been  adopted  by  the  convention  in  April  of  the  preceding  year.  Con 
gress  had,  in  compliance  with  the  earnest  petitions  of  the  more  intelligent 
and  respectable  Republicans,  authorized  a  separate  vote  to  be  taken  on  the 
disfranchising  clause  before  referred  to,  and  on  the  test  oath.  The  election 
was  held  on  the  6th  of  July.  The  total  vote  on  the  question  of  ratification 
was  215,422.  There  were  206,233  for,  and  only  9,189  against  ratification. 
The  total  vote  on  the  disfranchising  clause  was  208,765  —  84,404  being  in 
its  favor,  and  124,361  against  it.  The  test  oath  clause  was  rejected  by  a 
majority  of  40,992  votes.  This  co-operation  of  the  Virginia  Democracy 
with  liberal  Republicanism  saved  the  state  from  the  misfortunes  that  over 
took  North  Carolina  and  other  states.  The  postponement  of  the  election 
for  a  year  was  also  attended  with  good  results.  It  gave  an  opportunity  for 
the  President  and  Congress  to  see  what  sort  of  men  they  had  installed  in 
power  in  the  South.  It  tended  to  relax  their  rigorous  policy.  The  authority 
given  by  Congress,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  President,  for  the  submis 
sion  of  the  constitution  to  the  popular  vote,  and  for  a  separate  vote  on  the 
disfranchising  clauses,  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  of  the  growth  of  a  more 
generous  feeling. 

An  election  for  governor  and  state  officers  was  held  on  the  same  day  that 
the  vote  was  taken  on  the  constitution.  Gilbert  C.  Walker,  then  a  liberal 
Republican,  was  elected  governor  by  a  vote  of  119,535  as  against  101,204 
for  H.  H.  Wells,  the  provisional  governor.  The  conservatives  elected 
thirty  of  the  forty-three  state  senators  and  ninety-five  of  the  138  members  of 
the  house  of  delegates.  Six  of  the  Republican  senators  and  eighteen  of 
the  Republican  delegates  were  colored  men.  The  legislature  met  on  the 
5th  of  October.  Previous  to  that  time  Mr.  Wells  had  resigned  the  pro- 


FINANCIAL  CONDITION  OF  VIRGINIA.  493 

visional  governorship,  and  Mr.  Walker  had  been  installed  in  his  place. 
General  Canby  held  that  the  members  of  the  legislature  should  be  required 
to  take  the  test  oath  ;  but  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States  gave  an 
opinion  to  the  contrary.  It  was  absurd  to  say  that  the  members  of  a  state 
legislature  should  be  sworn  into  office  under  an  oath  prescribed  by  an 
act  of  Congress,  which  they  could  not  take  without  perjury.  The  gov 
ernor  and  legislature,  however,  were  still  provisional,  until  the  state  should 
be  received  back  into  the  Union  under  a  formal  act  of  Congress.  The 
bill  for  this  purpose  became  a  law  on  the  26th  of  January,  1870,  and  con 
tained  the  requirement  that  every  member  of  the  legislature,  before  taking 
his  seat,  should  make  oath  either  that  he  had  never  as  a  member  of  Congress, 
as  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  or  as  a  state  officer  or  legislator,  taken  an 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  afterward  engaged 
in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against  the  same,  or  that  the  disabilities  imposed 
upon  him  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  had  been  removed.  From  that 
date  the  Virginians  have  enjoyed  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  self-govern 
ment.  The  white  race  was  dominant  in  both  branches  of  the  legislature, 
and  in  the  person  of  Governor  Walker.  He  was  a  Northern  man  who  had 
gone  into  the  state  from  New-York  during  the  war.  He  was  afterward  in 
Congress  from  Virginia,  as  a  Democrat.  He  returned  to  New- York  City 
a  few  years  ago.  His  death  has  just  been  announced. 

Although  Northern  men  have  been  elected  to  office  by  the  Repub 
licans, —  together  with  men  of  the  African  race, — still  it  cannot  be  said 
that  Virginia,  like  most  of  the  other  Southern  States  since  the  era  of  re 
construction,  has  been  subjected  to  the  yoke  of  the  carpet-baggers  and  ne 
groes.  Her  political  status,  recently,  has  a  history  connected  rather  with  her 
fiscal  than  her  social  order.  This  chapter  on  reconstruction,  therefore,  as 
regards  Virginia,  will  be  closed  with  the  following  statement  of  her 
financial  condition.  From  the  report  of  the  sub-committee  of  the  joint 
select  committee  of  Congress,  in  1872,  the  following  facts  are  gathered : 

Debt  of  Virginia  in  1860,  ......        $31,938,144 

Old  debt  in  1865, 41,061,316 

This  is  exclusive  of  the  repudiated  debt  incurred  in  aid  of  the  rebellion, 
which  amounted  to  $7,505,724.  In  1870,  the  "  old  debt,"  by  the  accruing 
of  unpaid  interest,  had  risen  to  $45,872,778.  In  1872,  there  was  a  slight 
reduction,  about  $300,000,  from  the  figures  of  1870.  In  1860,  the  state 
held  assets,  in  the  shape  of  railroad  and  canal  aid  and  bank  stock,  amounting 
to  about  forty  million  dollars  ;  but,  the  bank  stock  having  been  lost  or  squan 
dered  during  the  war,  there  remained  in  1865  only  about  twenty-seven  mil 
lions  of  assets,  consisting  of  unproductive  railroads  and  canals. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 


RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  IN  THE  SECOND  MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

NORTH  AND  SOUTH  CAROLINA  — GENERAL  SICKLES  ASSIGNED  TO  COMMAND  — 
THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  RECONSTRUCTION  ACTS  APPLIED  —  REMOVALS  OF 
LOCAL  OFFICERS  —  OBJECTIONS  FROM  THE  PRESIDENT—  STATE  "  STAY  LAWS  " 
ENFORCED  BY  GENERAL  SICKLES  —  THE  UNITED  STATES  MARSHAL  OF 
NORTH  CAROLINA  DISREGARDS  THE  "STAY  LAW"— HE  IS  SUSTAINED  BY 
THE  PRESIDENT  —  GENERAL  SICKLES  RESIGNS  THE  COMMAND  — GENERAL 
CANBY  SUCCEEDS  HIM  — HE  APPROVES  OF  SICKLES'  COURSE  — THE  REGIS 
TRATION  OF  VOTERS  IN  THE  TWO  STATES— THE  WHITE  AND  COLORED 
VOTES  —THE  CONVENTIONS  -THE  NEW  CONSTITUTIONS  —THE  LEGISLATURES 
AND  THE  LEGISLATION  — THE  STATE  OFFICERS  — THE  METHODS  OF  THE 
"  CARPET-BAGGERS  "  AND  THEIR  NATIVE  ASSOCIATES  —  NOT  MAKING  BRICKS 
WITHOUT  STRAW -THE  ISSUE  OF  FRAUDULENT  BONDS  —  THE  TAXATION 
AND  THE  DEBTS  — THE  PLUNDERERS  DISPERSED— A  JUSTIFIABLE  REVOLU 
TION—CONGRESSIONAL  CONDITIONS  OF  REHABILITATION  —  THEIR  ACCEPT 
ANCE—THE  LONG  PROBATION  — 1865  TO  1877. 

GENERAL  Daniel  E.  Sickles  assumed  the  command  of  the  Second 
military  district,  composed  of  North  and  South  Carolina,  with 
headquarters  at  Charleston,  on  the  2ist  of  March,  1867.     On  the 
same  day  he  issued  an  order  announcing  his  assumption  of  au 
thority,  and  the  principles  by  which  he  would  be  governed.      The  latter 
were  those  of  the  Reconstruction  acts  of  Congress.     For  the  protection  of  the 
inhabitants  in  their  persons  and  property,  and  the  suppression  of  insurrection 
and  disorder,  the  local  civil  tribunals  were  permitted  to   take  jurisdiction 
of  and  try  causes,  excepting  only  such  as  might,  by  order  of  the  command 
ing  general,  be  referred  to  a  commission  or  other  military  tribunal  for  trial. 
The  order  stated  that  the  civil  government  then  existing  in  North  Carolina 
and  South  Carolina  was  provisional  only.       It  was  subject  to  the  paramount 
authority  of  the  United  States.       It  might  at  any  time  be  abolished,  modi 
fied,  or  superseded.     Local  laws  and  municipal  regulations,  not  inconsistent 
with  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  or  the  proclamations 


GENERAL  SICKLES  IN  COMMAND.  495 

of  the  President,  or  with  such  regulations  as  might  be  prescribed  in  the 
orders  of  the  commanding  general,  were  declared  to  be  in  force.  In  con 
formity  with  these  principles,  the  civil  officers  were  authorized  to  continue 
the  exercise  of  their  proper  functions.  Every  case  of  neglect  or  refusal  on 
the  part  of  the  civil  authorities  to  perform  the  duties  required  of  them  by  law 
was  to  be  promptly  reported  to  headquarters  by  the  post  commanders.  These 
officers  were  required  to  make  arrests  for  crimes  and  offenses  against  the 
laws,  whenever  the  civil  officers  neglected  or  failed  to  act.  The  command 
ing  general  appealed  to  the  civil  officers  and  to  all  good  citizens  to  aid  him  in 
the  delicate  duties  imposed  upon  him  for  preservation  of  order.  A  special 
order  was  issued  on  the  loth  of  April,  in  regard  to  affairs  at  Wilmington, 
North  Carolina.  By  this  order,  two  policemen  of  that  town  were  removed, 
on  the  charge  that  they  had  "  shown  a  want  of  discretion  and  judgment  in 
the  discharge  of  their  duties,  and  had  exhibited  unwarranted  violence  in  mak 
ing  arrests."  This,  and  similar  acts  on  the  part  of  other  district  commanders, 
led  to  an  elaborate  opinion  from  the  Attorney-General  on  the  powers  con 
ferred  upon  the  district  commanders  by  the  Reconstruction  acts.  The 
opinion  was  to  the  effect  that  no  authority  had  been  given  them  to  remove 
the  civil  officers  of  the  states,  or  to  appoint  others  in  their  places.  This 
is  the  same  opinion  to  which  reference  is  made  on  page  378,  ante.  On  the 
i4th  of  June,  General  Sickles  sent  a  telegram  to  the  Attorney-General, 
which  read  as  follows :  "  In  the  present  condition  of  these  states,  it  is  not 
practicable  to  afford  adequate  security  to  persons  and  property,  unless  the 
commanding  general  of  the  district  is  authorized  to  remove  civil  officers  who 
fail  to  perform  their  duties." 

General  Sickles  regarded  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General  as  an  im 
peachment  of  his  administration.  Other  district  commanders  had  construed 
their  powers  in  favor  of  removals,  and  had  acted  accordingly.  He  tendered 
his  resignation  in  a  dispatch  dated  June  19.  It  was  not  acepted,  however. 
An  order  issued  by  him  on  the  nth  of  April  forbade  sheriffs  to  execute  civil 
process  for  the  sale  of  property.  This  was  in  the  nature  of  a  stay  law.  It 
conformed  to  the  act  of  the  state  legislature.  It  led  to  his  removal  from  com 
mand  of  the  district.  The  administrative  officers  of  the  two  states  obeyed 
the  order.  The  marshal  of  South  Carolina  did  likewise  ;  but  the  marshal  of 
North  Carolina  disregarded  it.  He  attempted  to  sell  the  property  of  parties 
in  Wilmington,  under  executions  issued  by  order  of  Chief  Justice  Chase, 
presiding  in  the  Circuit  Court  at  Raleigh,  in  June  of  that  year.  General 
Sickles'  subordinate,  Colonel  Frank,  stopped  the  deputy  in  the  execution  of 
his  duty.  The  deputy  was  instructed  by  the  marshal  to  suspend  the  sale 
until  General  Sickles  could  be  heard  from.  The  latter  officer  sustained 
Colonel  Frank.  The  .marshal  reported  the  facts  to  the  Attorney-General, 
who  laid  the  matter  before  the  President.  The  course  of  the  marshal  was 
fully  sustained.  Chief  Justice  Chase  had  said  on  the  6th  of  June,  when  ad- 


496  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

dressing  the  Raleigh  bar  at  the  opening  of  his  circuit  in  reference  to  the 
military  government  under  the  act  of  March  2,  1867  :  "  This  military  author 
ity  does  not  extend  in  any  respect  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States."  This 
was,  no  doubt,  the  first  judicial  interpretation  of  the  act,  and  probably  Gen 
eral  Sickles  had  no  information  of  it.  He  had  too  much  regard  for  lawful, 
judicial  authority  ever  to  attempt  to  resist  it.  General  Sickles  was  relieved, 
August  26,  from  the  command  of  the  district.  He  was  directed  to  repair  to 
New -York  on  leave. 

Prior  to  his  being  relieved,  General  Sickles  issued  a  general  order 
announcing  that  a  registration  of  voters  under  the  Reconstruction  acts 
would  commence  on  the  third  Monday  in  July.  Instructions  for  this  purpose 
were  embraced  in  the  order.  On  the  6th  of  July,  however,  he  proposed,  in 
a  letter  to  the  Adjutant-General,  that  the  work  should  be  postponed  until  the 
rights  of  certain  classes  to  registration  should  be  determined  by  Congress,  or 
otherwise.  General  Canby  superseded  General  Sickles  on  Sept.  5,  1867. 
Among  his  first  important  acts  as  commander  of  the  district  was  a  regulation 
for  the  selection  of  juries.  He  ordered  that  personal  fitness,  and  not  color, 
should  be  the  rule.  In  his  annual  report  of  Aug.  31,  1868,  General  Canby 
expressed  his  approval  of  General  Sickles*  order  for  the  arrest  of  the  execu 
tion  of  civil  process.  The  order  continued  to  be  enforced  against  process 
out  of  the  state  courts,  because,  as  stated,  the  legislature  had  passed  a  stay 
law,  on  which  the  order  was  based.  It  is  true  that  stay  laws  are  unconstitu 
tional,  but  martial  rule  is  avowedly  above  constitutional  restraints.  This 
action  of  Generals  Sickles  and  Canby  evinced  a  strong  disposition  on  their 
part  to  respect  and  enforce  the  state  laws. 

The  number  of  persons  registered  under  the  acts  of  Congress,  and  au 
thorized  to  vote  for  delegates  to  the  state  convention  of  1867,  as  well  as  on 
the  question  whether  a  convention  should  be  held,  was  178,665.  Of  these, 
93,006  voted  for  a  convention,  32,962  voted  against  a  convention,  and 
52,697  refrained  from  voting.  A  large  majority  of  the  delegates  chosen 
were  Republicans,  in  name  at  least,  though  most  of  them  were  ignorant  of 
the  real  import  of  the  term.  The  constitution  framed  by  this  convention  en 
franchised  the  whole  male  population  of  voting  age, —  twenty-one  years, — 
without  regard  to  race  or  color.  In  other  words,  the  class  which  had  been 
excluded  from  the  polls  in  electing  delegates  to  the  convention,  and  in  the 
ratification  of  the  constitution,  was  enfranchised.  They  were  given  equal 
privileges  to  those  conferred  on  their  former  slaves  by  the  Reconstruction 
acts.  The  revised  registration,  which  was  made  on  April  i,  1868,  only  six 
months  after  the  first,  showed  the  voting  population  of  the  state  to  be  198,- 
873 »  or  20,208  more  than  the  original  registration  under  the  Reconstruction 
acts.  These  additional  voters,  who  were  mostly  white,  did  not  vote,  however, 
at  the  first  election  for  governor,  state  officers,  legislature,  and  congressmen. 
This  was  owing  to  an  amendatory  act  of  Congress,  passed  on  March  n, 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA.  497 

1868,  only  six  weeks  before  the  state  election  under  the  new  constitution. 
It  provided  :  "  That  the  constitutional  convention  of  any  of  the  states  men 
tioned  in  the  acts  to  which  this  is  amendatory  may  provide  that  at  the  time 
of  voting  upon  the  ratification  of  the  constitution,  the  registered  voters  may 
vote  also  for  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
and  for  all  elective  officers  provided  for  by  the  said  constitution  ;  and  at  the 
same  election,  the  officers  who  shall  make  the  return  of  the  votes  cast  on  the 
ratification  or  rejection  of  the  constitution,  shall  enumerate  and  certify  the 
votes  cast  for  members  of  Congress."  It  is  obvious  that  this  act  of  Con 
gress,  by  which  ten  or  twelve  thousand  of  the  most  intelligent  people  of  the 
state  were  deprived  of  the  right  to  vote  at  that  election,  was  a  flagrant  viola 
tion  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  of  the  spirit  of  the 
new  constitution  which  was  to  be  put  in  force.  Under  that  new  consti 
tution,  persons  disfranchised  by  the  Reconstruction  acts  were  to  be  made 
qualified  voters. 

According  to  the  report  of  the  chief  of  the  bureau  of  civil  affairs,  the 
original  registration  showed  the  white  electors  to  be  106,721  in  number,  and 
the  blacks  to  be  72,932  ;  total,  179,653.  The  vote  in  1868  on  the  ratification 
of  the  constitution  was — white,  117,431,  and  colored,  79,445  ;  for  ratification, 
93,118.;  against  it,  74,009.  From  these  figures,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
nearly  every  colored  man  voted,  and  voted  one  way,  it  would  follow  that 
of  the  93,006  votes  cast  for  the  convention,  and  the  93,118  votes  cast  for  the 
ratification  of  the  constitution,  not  more  than  twenty-one  or  twenty-two 
thousand  were  white  votes.  It  is  singular  that  the  six  thousand  five  hundred 
and  odd  colored  votes  which  were  added  by  the  revised  registration  failed  to 
increase  the  Republican  vote  for  ratification  above  that  cast  for  the  conven 
tion.  Upon  this  view  of  the  case  the  white  vote  for  rejection  of  the  con 
stitution  was  considerably  more  than  double  the  number  cast  against  holding 
the  convention.  The  Republicans  elected  large  majorities  to  both  branches 
of  the  legislature,  thirty-eight  to  twelve  in  the  senate,  and  eighty-two  to 
thirty-eight  in  the  house  of  representatives.  They  also  elected  five  of  the 
seven  Representatives' to  Congress,  among  them  John  T.  Deweese,  a  North 
ern  man.  Holden's  majority  for  governor  over  Thomas  S.  Ashe,  Demo 
crat,  was  18,641.  The  elections  in  1870  and  1872,  when  the  vote  was  uni 
versal,  as  the  new  constitution  provided,  reversed  these  majorities. 

A  history  of  reconstruction  in  North  Carolina  would  be  incomplete  if  it 
failed  to  give  some  account  of  the  wholesale  bribery  and  peculation  that 
were  practiced  by  majorities  in  the  constitutional  convention  of  1 867-^68 ,  and 
in  the  legislature  and  by  state  officials  in  i868-'69. 

The  Democrats  came  into  power,  or  into  the  control  of  the  legislature,  in 
1870.  They  appointed  investigating  committees.  The  details  of  the  sworn 
testimony  fill  volumes.  Want  of  space  confines  the  author  to  a  brief  state 
ment  of  a  few  of  the  cases. 


498  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

George  W.  Swepson,  a  citizen  of  the  state,  a  banker  of  Raleigh,  presi 
dent  of  the  western  division  of  the  Western  North  Carolina  Railroad,  and  a 
principal  actor  in  these  transactions,  was  brought  before  one  of  these  com 
mittees.  He  stated  on  oath,  in  reply  to  a  question  as  to  the  methods  used  to 
secure  appropriations  in  aid  of  his  and  other  roads,  that  he  was  told  by 
"  Littlefield  and  Deweese,  lobby  lawyers,"  that  he  could  get  no  bills  through 
the  legislature  in  aid  of  his  railroad  unless  he  entered  into  the  same  arrange 
ments  that  other  railroad  presidents  had  made.  He  was  to  pay  them  ten  per 
centum  in  kind,  of  the  amount  of  the  appropriations.  Littlefield  passed  for 
an  ex-Union  general,  was  a  man  of  imposing  presence,  and  possessed  great 
influence  with  the  unsophisticated  native  Republicans,  white  and  colored. 
Deweese  was  also  an  ex-Union  officer,  whose  character  will  be  understood 
when  it  is  stated  that  he  bought  his  nomination  to  Congress  from  a  colored 
rival,  and  resigned  within  three  months  after  taking  his  seat,  in  order  to 
avoid  expulsion  for  selling  a  cadetship  in  the  Annapolis  naval  school. 
Swepson,  who  had  no  repugnance  to  such  methods,  admitted  that  he  ac 
cepted  the  terms  of  Littlefield  and  Deweese,  and  paid  to  them,  or  their 
order,  $241,000,  and  some  odd  hundred  dollars  in  money  and  bonds,  for 
their  services  in  procuring  the  passage  of  acts  making  appropriations  for 
his  railroad.  He  stated  that  he  paid  the  amount  in  various  ways  —  sometimes 
upon  Littlefield's  order,  sometimes  by  taking  up  his  notes  and  those  of  other 
parties  at  his  request,  sometimes  in  money,  and  sometimes  in  bonds.  Swep 
son  referred  the  committee  of  investigation  to  his  clerk,  G.  Rosenthal,  who 
gave  a  list  of  the  parties  to  whom  the  money  was  paid.  This  list  embraced 
nearly  every  leading  Northern  member  of  the  convention  and  legislature,  and 
not  a  few  natives,  "without  regard  to  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude." 

Among  the  persons  named  as  recipients  of  large  sums  were  Gen.  Joseph 
C.  Abbott,  who  went  from  New  Hampshire,  and  who  was  elected  a  United 
States  Senator ;  George  Z.  French,  a  prominent  member  of  the  convention 
and  legislature ;  and  Colonel  Estes,  a  delegate  to  the  convention,  who  was 
appointed  collector  of  internal  revenue.  Mr.  A.  W.  Tourgee,  who  was 
a  leading  member  of  the  convention,  and  a  number  of  others  were  said  to 
have  received  smaller  sums.  Littlefield  and  Deweese,  of  course,  drew  their 
dividends,  amounting  to  a  large  sum.  The  parties  accused  were  allowed  to 
go  before  the  committee  and  give  explanations  of  their  connection  with  this 
fund.  In  some  instances  comparatively  small  amounts  appear  to  have  been 
paid  out  for  legitimate  objects,  and  under  circumstances  which  show  no  com 
plicity  in  the  unlawful  conspiracy  against  the  treasury  of  the  state.  But  this 
cannot  be  said  of  the  transactions  of  the  leading  men  in  the  convention  and 
legislature  with  the  managers  of  this  corruption  fund.  Mr.  Tourgee  had 
been  a  captain  or  lieutenant  in  one  of  the  Union  regiments.  After  the  war 
he  remained  in  North  Carolina.  At  the  time  he  located  there  he  was  far 


ILLEGAL  ISSUE  OF  BONDS.  499 

from  being  in  affluent  circumstances.  He  was  not  one  of  those  wealthy 
Northern  gentlemen  who  went  South  on  "  a  fool's  errand."  But  he  was  not 
without  thrifty  enterprise,  —  in  office-seeking.  Before  obtaining  a  license  to 
practice  law,  he  got  elected  to  the  office  of  circuit  judge,  at  a  salary  of  $2,500 
a  year,  for  a  ten  years'  term.  While  on  the  bench  he  was  for  three  or  four 
years  one  of  the  commissioners  for  codifying  the  state  laws.  This  office 
brought  him  an  additional  two  thousand  a  year.  When  his  judgeship  ex 
pired  by  limitation,  he  obtained  the  lucrative  office  of  United  States  pension 
agent.  Altogether,  it  may  be  said  of  Mr.  Tourjee,  that  he  did  not  fill  the 
description  of  one  who  had  to  make  "  bricks  without  straw." 

Swepson,  as  a  patron  of  the  lobby,  played  a  princely  part.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  he  shared  in  the  spoils,  except  through  the  large  appropria 
tions  to  his  railroad.  Other  railroad  presidents  were  made  to  bleed  freely, 
as  a  consideration  for  the  passage  of  measures  favorable  to  their  roads. 
The  president  of  the  Chatham  road  stated  that  he  sold  Littlefield  $100,000 
worth  of  stock,  on  a  credit  of  ninety  days,  when  the  bonds  were  worth 
sixty-five  cash  in  New-York.  The  president  of  the  Williamston  and  Tar- 
borough  road  paid  $10,000  for  a  charter.  The  same  company  gave  Little- 
field  a  contract  for  furnishing  cross-ties,  at  a  liberal  rate,  in  a  section  of  the 
state  which  the  contractor  had  never  seen.  Another  case  was  that  of  a  com 
mittee  of  the  legislature  who  had  contracted  with  parties  for  eight  thousand 
acres  of  land  on  which  to  build  a  penitentiary.  They  stipulated  to  pay 
twelve  dollars  per  acre,  in  state  bonds,  and  the  bonds  were  issued  to  the 
parties.  The  land  consisted  of  poor  pine  barrens,  within  a  few  miles  of 
Raleigh.  This  the  contractors  purchased,  after  making  the  contract,  at 
sixty-five  cents  per  acre.  The  fraud  was  detected,  and  the  legislature,  which 
was  still  in  session,  repudiated  the  bonds. 

The  convention  and  legislature  appropriated,  altogether,  about  twenty- 
five  millions  in  railroad  bonds.  The  new  constitution  which  these  men 
had  made  provided  that  in  every  instance  in  which  such  appropriations 
should  be  made  in  favor  of  a  new  road,  the  question  should  be  submitted  to 
the  popular  vote  for  ratification.  Furthermore,  it  contained  the  following 
provision  :  "  Until  the  bonds  of  the  state  shall  be  at  par,  the  general  assem 
bly  shall  have  no  power  to  contract  any  new  debt  or  pecuniary  obligation  in 
behalf  of  the  state,  except  to  supply  a  casual  deficit,  or  for  suppressing  inva 
sion  or  insurrection,  unless  it  shall  in  the  same  bill  levy  a  special  tax  to  pay 
the  interest  annually."  The  state  bonds  were  greatly  below  par,  and  the 
question  had  not  been  submitted  to  the  people  for  approval.  Moreover, 
another  clause  limited  the  amount  of  taxes  to  two  dollars  in  the  hundred, 
which  limit  had  already  been  exceeded.  On  these  grounds  the  Republican 
supreme  court  decided  that  nearly  half  of  the  twenty-five  millions  of  bonds 
authorized  by  the  legislature  were  unconstitutional.  Chief  Justice  Pearson 
gave  the  opinion  on  this  point,  which  was  concurred  in  by  a  majority  of  the 


500  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

court.  In  1880,  the  invalidity  of  the  special  tax  bonds  was  declared  by  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution.  The  legislature  was  by  this  amendment  for 
bidden  to  pay,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  any  debt  or  bond  incurred  or 
issued  by  the  constitutional  convention  of  iS67-'6S,  or  by  the  legislature 
elected  in  1868,  at  any  of  its  sessions,  except  the  bonds  issued  to  fund  the 
interest  on  the  old  debts  of  the  state,  unless  the  proposition  to  pay  were  first 
submitted  for  ratification  to  the  people  of  the  state,  and  approved  by  a  ma 
jority  of  the  qualified  voters.  This  amendment  became  necessary  in  order 
to  put  a  stop  to  the  efforts  of  the  holders  of  the  fraudulent  bonds  and  their 
attorneys  to  overturn  the  decisions  of  the  court. 

The  bonds  authorized  by  the  convention  and  legislature,  according  to 
the  printed  report  of  J.  M.  Worth,  the  state  treasurer,  amounted  to  $23,- 
640,000;  of  which  the  convention  had  authorized  $2,150,000,  and  the 
legislature  $21 ,490,000.  Of  the  convention  bonds,  $800,000  were  not  issued 
and  $170,000  were  returned,  leaving  $1,180,000  outstanding.  Of  the  bonds 
authorized  by  the  legislature,  $5,290,000  were  not  issued ;  and  $4,493,000 
were  returned  to  the  treasury,  leaving  $11,707,000.  The  supreme  court  of 
the  state  declared  $5,150,000  of  these  bonds  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  the 
people,  as  above  stated,  declared  the  remainder  invalid  by  a  constitutional 
amendment.  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  the  foregoing  statement,  that  the 
court  declared  any  of  the  bonds  to  be  constitutional.  It  could  only  give 
decisions  upon  the  cases  brought  before  it. 

The  outcry  of  the  people  of  North  Carolina  against  the  reckless  extrava 
gance  and  unconstitutional  legislation  of  the  carpet-baggers  and  their  native 
coadjutors  was  loud  and  deep.  The  purchasers  of  the  bonds  in  New-York 
were  not  imposed  upon.  They  had  full  warning  of  the  character  of  the 
bonds  they  were  buying.  They  bought  below  par,  on  speculation,  hoping 
to  get  rid  of  them  before  they  should  fall  lower.  Indeed,  it  was  only  pro 
fessional  stock-jobbers  who  got  hold  of  them.  They  managed  to  save 
themselves  from  loss.  For  months,  the  Raleigh  lobbyists,  among  them 
several  members  of  the  convention  and  legislature,  railroad  men,  and  state 
officials,  were  in  New-York,  buying  and  selling  these  bonds  to  each  other, 
really  or  nominally,  and  having  their  sales  published,  in  the  hope  of  in 
veigling  capitalists  into  the  snare.  But  they  failed,  utterly,  disgracefully. 
They  were  hoist  by  their  own  petard.  They  deserved  their  fate. 

South  Carolina  being  a  part  of  this  district,  the  general  orders  enforced 
in  that  state  have  for  the  most  part  been  already  presented  in  their  essential 
features.  It  is  due  to  General  Sickles  to  say  that  during  the  brief  period  of 
his  authority  in  the  district,  he  manifested  a  kindly  spirit  toward  the  people, 
and  that  his  most  arbitrary  acts  seemed  to  be  inspired  by  a  benevolent  pur 
pose  ;  for  example :  —  his  enforcement  of  the  stay  law  of  North  Carolina 
and  his  application  of  the  same  rule  in  South  Carolina. 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA.  501 

A  large  majority  of  the  population  of  South  Carolina  has  always  been  of 
the  negro  race ;  the  proportion  being  quite  three-fifths  colored  to  two-fifths 
white.  The  universal  enfranchisement  of  the  negroes  by  the  Reconstruc 
tion  acts,  and  the  disfranchisement  of  some  thousands  of  the  most  intelligent 
and  wealthy  white  men,  was,  therefore,  equivalent  to  turning  society  upside 
down.  It  was  the  enthronement  of  stark  ignorance,  accompanied  by  abject 
poverty.  Yet  the  more  intelligent  among  the  blacks  displayed  good  sense, 
as  well  as  correct  feeling,  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  order  of  things.  The 
mass  of  the  colored  people  seemed  to  be  easily  impressed  with  the  import 
ance  of  a  good  understanding  with  the  whites.  Soon  after  the  passage  of 
the  Reconstruction  acts,  a  meeting  was  held  at  Columbia  to  celebrate  the 
great  event.  Eminent  white  gentlemen  were  invited  to  be  present  and 
address  them.  Among  others,  Gen.  Wade  Hampton  accepted  the  invita 
tion.  He  addressed  the  meeting  and  pointed  out  the  identity  of  interests  be 
tween  the  two  races.  He  advised  the  colored  people  to  seek  political  affiliation 
with  the  best  class  of  whites,  whose  interest  it  was  to  restore  peace,  order, 
and  prosperity  to  the  South.  Beverly  Nash,  a  colored  speaker,  declared 
that  the  negroes  recognized  the  Southern  white  man  as  the  "  true  friend  of 
the  black  man."  He  was  in  favor  of  removing  political  disabilities.  At 
Charleston  the  colored  men  met  in  convention  and  formed  the  u  Union  Re 
publican  Party  of  South  Carolina.'*  They  adopted  a  platform  free  from  the 
rancor  which  is  inspired  by  the  antagonisms  of  race  and  party.  At  a  meeting 
held  at  Columbia,  Governor  Orr  addressed  the  people.  He  advised  them 
to  keep  clear  of  national  politics  and  the  great  party  organizations  of  the 
country,  to  devote  themselves  to  the  interests  of  the  state,  and  to  seek  coun 
sel  of  those  who  were  most  concerned  in  her  welfare.  The  resolutions 
adopted  declared  that  "  universal  suffrage  accords  with  the  principle  that  all 
free  governments  are  founded  upon  the  consent  of  the  governed."  They 
were  in  favor  of  a  constitution  for  South  Carolina  that  would  grant  equality 
before  the  laws,  irrespective  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition.  They 
were  in  favor  of  free  schools  "alike  for  all,"  and  of  a  reform  in  the  criminal 
code  of  the  state.  It  is  not  clear  whether  mixed  schools  for  the  two  races 
were  meant.  The  idea  of  mixed  schools  is  of  Northern  origin.  The  negroes, 
themselves,  prefer  separate  schools,  taught  by  colored  men  and  women. 

General  Sickles  addressed  the  freedmen  at  Columbia,  to  whom  he  gave 
excellent  advice.  He  told  them  that  they  should  cultivate  friendly  relations 
with  their  former  masters,  jand  refrain  from  extravagant  demands  and  offen 
sive  language.  He  said:  "  It  will  not  be  necessary,  nor  can  it  be  other 
wise  than  injurious  to  yourselves,  for  you  to  neglect  your  regular  employment 
and  associations  to  attend  to  political  affairs.  I  promise  you  that,  without 
any  such  sacrifice  on  your  part,  every  man  in  the  Carolinas  entitled  to  a  voice 
in  the  decision  of  the  great  questions  to  be  passed  upon  under  my  supervi 
sion,  shall  have  a  fair  chance  to  act  his  part  without  let  or  hindrance  from  any 


502  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

one."  In  addressing  the  Board  of  Trade  at  Charleston,  General  Sickles  reit 
erated  his  purpose,  as  expressed  in  his  first  general  order,  to  make  use  of 
the  aid  of  all  faithful  civil  officers  in  the  state  in  maintaining  order,  and 
in  efforts  to  promote  the  material  prosperity  of  the  commonwealth.  He 
called  upon  all  good  citizens  to  aid  him  in  reorganizing  the  institutions  of 
the  state.  Governor  Orr,  on  the  same  occasion,  advised  acquiescence  in 
the  measures  of  Congress,  although  they  were  objectionable  in  several  re 
spects.  He  deplored  the  disfranchisement  of  many  of  the  best  citizens  ;  he 
deprecated  the  enfranchisement  of  the  colored  race  without  regard  to  their 
education  and  their  fitness  to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage. 

The  registration  of  voters  was  completed  in  October.  Of  the  whites 
there  were  46,346,  and  of  the  blacks,  78,982,  registered.  On  the  i6th  of 
that  month,  General  Canby,  in  a  general  order,  directed  that  an  election  be 
held  Nov.  19  and  20,  for  delegates  to  a  state  convention  to  frame  a  constitu 
tion.  The  regulations  for  registration,  holding  the  election,  counting  and 
announcing  the  result  of  the  vote  were  altogether  similar  to  those  which  have 
been  stated  with  reference  to  North  Carolina.  The  number  of  delegates 
chosen  was  ninety-seven.  The  "  Union  Republicans"  held  a  convention  at 
Charleston  in  October,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  organization  and  concert 
of  action.  A  like  assemblage  of  the  "  conservatives,"  under  the  leader 
ship  of  Gen.  Wade  Hampton,  ex-Governor  Perry,  and  Judge  Aldrich,  was 
held  at  Columbia.  The  conservatives  put  forth  an  address,  in  which  the 
plan  of  reconstruction  was  condemned  in  the  strongest  terms. 

The  white  people  took  veiy  little  part  in  the  election  of  delegates  to  the 
convention.  Of  the  125,328  registered  votes,  only  71,087  were  cast  on  the 
question  of  holding  the  convention,  and  of  these  68,876  were  colored,  cast 
for,  and  2,081  white,  against  the  convention.  There  were  only  130  white 
votes  for  the  convention.  Of  the  ninety-seven  delegates  chosen,  sixty-three 
were  colored,  and  thirty-four  were  white,  and  of  the  whites  nearly  or  quite 
all  called  themselves  Republicans.  According  to  the  revised  registration 
returns,  the  number  of  the  black  voters  was  80,286,  and  the  white,  47,010. 

The  convention  assembled  by  order  of  General  Canby,  in  Charleston, 
Jan.  14,  1868.  A.  G.  Mackey,  an  old  and  respectable  citizen  of  the  state, 
of  northern  birth,  was  elected  president.  Governor  Orr  was  invited  to 
address  the  body.  He  spoke  earnestly.  He  expressed  his  regret  that  the 
white  people  who  were  permitted  to  vote  by  the  Reconstruction  acts  had  very 
generally  abstained  from  exercising  the  privilege  ;  and  that,  as  a  conse 
quence,  the  "  intelligence,  refinement,  and  wealth  of  the  state  "  were  not  rep 
resented  in  the  convention.  He  urged  the  importance  of  moderation.  He 
hoped  that  all  political  disabilities  would  be  removed,  and  that  provision 
would  be  made  for  the  education  of  both  races.  He  said  that  he  regarded 
the  doctrine  of  secession  as  exploded,  and  that  the  highest  allegiance  of  the 
citizen  was  due  to  the  general  government. 


THE  STATE  ELECTION.  503 

The  convention  passed  an  ordinance  "  staying"  executions  under  civil 
process  for  the  collection  of  debts.  General  Canby  had  it  enforced.  A 
constitution  was  adopted  which  abolished  slavery,  and  placed  all  persons  on 
an  equality  before  the  law.  The  carpet-baggers,  who  prepared  the  consti 
tution  and  dictated  measures  generally,  put  in  a  saving  clause  for  them 
selves,  in  the  article  prescribing  the  qualifications  of  the  governor.  No  person 
was  to  be  governor,  "  except  at  the  first  election  under  the  constitution,"  who 
had  not  been  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  and  a  citizen  and  resident  of  this 
state  for  two  years  next  preceding  the  day  of  election.  The  persistent  seces 
sionists  were  shelved  by  requiring  of  all  officials  an  oath  renouncing  forever 
any  right  of  the  state  to  secede.  Suffrage  was  made  universal,  except  as  to 
those  who  were  barred  by  the  United  States  Constitution.  The  legislature 
was  to  provide  a  liberal  system  of  free  education.  The  compulsory  attend 
ance  of  children  at  school  was  to  be  required  by  law.  A  poll  tax,  and  a 
tax  on  property  were  to  be  levied  for  the  support  of  schools.  This  constitu 
tion  was  ratified  by  the  popular  vote  in  April,  1868.  The  majority  was 
43,470,  in  a  total  vote  of  98,046.  Only  about  half  the  white  registered 
voters  availed  themselves  of  their  privilege.  Their  sullen  indifference 
brought  its  retribution. 

The  election  of  governor,  assembly,  and  other  state  officers  was  held  at 
the  same  time.  It  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  the  Republicans,  as  a  matter  of 
course.  The  governor  and  all  general  officers  were  elected  by  large  ma 
jorities,  and  only  a  few  "conservatives"  were  chosen  for  the  legislature. 
The  Democrats,  or  conservatives,  forwarded  to  Congress  an  earnest  protest 
against  the  acceptance  of  the  constitution.  They  called  attention  to  the 
eighth  article,  which,  as  the  protest  said,  "enfranchises  every  male  negro 
over  the  age  of  twenty-one,  whether  a  convict,  felon,  or  a  pauper."  This 
was  an  overstatement  of  the  case  as  regards  paupers.  While  in  an  alms- 
house,  they  were  expressly  excluded ;  but  otherwise,  not.  The  case  was 
similar  in  respect  to  white  convicts.  Attention  was  called  to  the  dis- 
franchisement  of  *'  every  white  man  who  had  held  office  in  South  Carolina." 

Richard  K.  Scott,  an  officer  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  from  Ohio,  was 
elected  governor.  Lemuel  Boozer,  a  native  colored  man,  was  elected  lieu 
tenant-governor.  Franklin  J.  Moses  was  elected  adjutant  and  inspector- 
general.  He  was  a  native  white  man,  who  had  before  and  during  the  war 
signalized  himself  as  an  extreme  secessionist.  The  secretary  of  state  was 
Francis  L.  Cardoza,  a  colored  man  of  education.  The  attorney-general 
was  Daniel  H.  Chamberlain,  of  Massachusetts,  who  had  served  in  the  army 
of  the  Union.  The  state  treasurer  was  Niles  G.  Parker,  of  Massachusetts  ; 
and  the  comptroller-general,  N.  J.  Neagle,  was  from  New- York,  but  said 
to  be  originally  from  North  Carolina.  Of  the  1 24  members  of  the  house  of 
representatives,  seventy-six  were  men  of  color,  and  Republicans,  of  course ; 
and  of  the  forty-eight  white  members,  fourteen  were  Democrats.  The  sen- 


504  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ate  consisted  of  thirty-three  members,  nine  of  whom  were  colored  Republi 
cans,  and  of  the  remaining  twenty-four,  all  white,  seven  were  Democrats. 
On  joint  ballot,  therefore,  the  Republicans  numbered  136,  and  the  Demo 
crats  twenty-one.  This  body  met  on  the  6th  of  July,  1868.  The  new 
governor  was  inaugurated  on  the  9th.  The  retiring  provisional  governor, 
James  L.  Orr,  who  had  been  elected  by  the  white  people  in  1865,  in  com 
petition  with  Gen.  Wade  Hampton,  delivered  an  address,  by  invitation  of 
the  legislature,  upon  the  condition  of  affairs.  His  suggestions  were  similar 
to  those  which  have  already  been  quoted  from  his  speeches.  The  Fourteenth 
Amendment  was  ratified  on  the  9th,  by  a  vote  of  108  to  10.  United  States 
Senators  were  chosen ;  Thomas  J.  Robertson  being  selected  for  the  short 
term,  and  Frederick  A.  Sawyer  for  the  long  term.  Judges  of  the  supreme 
court  were  also  chosen.  These  were  F.  J.  Moses,  Sr.,  chief  justice,  and 
A.  J.  Willard  and  S.  L.  Hoge,  associates. 

Among  the  first  measures  introduced  in  the  house  of  representatives 
was,  "  A  bill  to  protect  all  persons  in  the  state  in  their  civil  rights,  and  fur 
nish  the  means  of  their  vindication.'*  It  required,  among  other  things,  that 
hotel-keepers  should  entertain  all  comers  who  could  pay  their  way,  without 
discrimination  as  to  color.  The  bill  passed  the  house.  It  went  to  the 
senate.  There  it  received  important  amendments  before  being  adopted. 
The  two  houses  failed  to  agree  on  these  amendments,  and  the  bill  fell  to 
the  ground.  An  act  was  passed  to  enable  the  freedmen  to  buy  lands.  A 
land  commission  was  established  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  lands  to  be 
sold  in  small  parcels,  on  favorable  terms,  to  persons  wanting  permanent 
homes.  Within  a  year  45,000  acres  were  thus  bought  up,  and  surveyed  for 
re-sale. 

At  the  next  session  of  the  legislature  an  act  was  passed  making  it  unlaw 
ful  for  common  carriers  or  any  party  or  parties  engaged  in  any  business, 
calling,  or  pursuit,  for  the  carrying  on  of  which  a  license  or  charter  was 
required  by  law,  municipal,  state,  Federal,  or  otherwise,  to  discriminate 
between  persons  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition.  As  a 
Federal  license  was  at  that  time  required  of  inn-keepers,  this  law  was  appli 
cable  to  them ;  but  there  was  doubtless  found  some  means  of  resistance  or 
evasion.  It  applied  also  to  chartered  colleges  and  academies  —  even  to  such 
as  were  dedicated  to  the  education  of  females.  This  law,  if  rigidly  enforced, 
would  have  broken  up  every  high  school  and  college  in  the  state.  Acts  of 
this  character  were  not  dictated  by  aspirations  of  the  colored  people  for 
white  and  black  association,  but  by  the  fanaticism  or  malevolence  of  the 
Northern  adventurers. 

The  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  United  States  Constitution  was  ratified 
by  a  nearly  unanimous  vote,  there  being  but  one  vote  in  opposition  to  it  in 
the  senate,  and  only  three  in  the  house  of  representatives.  A  law  regulating 
the  drawing  of  jurors  from  the  list  of  voters  was  passed.  It  required  that 


THE  UNION  REFORM  PARTY.  505 

the  number  of  names  of  white  voters  on  the  lists  should  bear  to  the  number 
of  names  of  colored  voters,  as  near  as  might  be,  the  same  proportion  as  the 
whole  number  of  white  voters  bore  to  the  whole  number  of  colored  voters 
in  the  township,  city,  or  county,  as  the  case  might  be.  This  arrangement 
assured  the  supremacy  of  the  densest  ignorance  in  the  jury-box,  in  four-fifths 
of  the  state. 

In  February,  1870,  a  black  man  of  Northern  birth,  J.  J.  Wright,  was 
elected  by  the  legislature  to  the  office  of  chief  justice  of  the  supreme  court. 
The  next  legislature,  chosen  in  the  fall,  impeached  Judge  T.  O.  P.  Vernon, 
of  the  circuit  court,  on  charges  of  drunkenness,  and  of  having  issued  and 
signed  blank  writs  of  habeas  corpus,  addressed  to  no  one,  and  without 
designating  the  person  to  be  brought  before  the  court.  He  was  allowed  to 
escape  the  penalties  annexed  to  these  offenses  by  resigning.  It  seems  to 
have  been  the  rule  to  pardon  criminals  before  the  expiration  of  their  terms  of 
service  in  the  penitentiary,  in  order  to  prevent  their  disfranchisement.  This, 
however,  was  an  exclusive  privilege  granted  only  to  Republicans. 

During  the  spring  of  1870,  a  new  political  organization  was  formed. 
It  was  styled  the  u  Union  Reform  Party."  It  was  composed  chiefly  of 
Democrats,  with  a  few  Republicans.  A  convention  of  this  party  met  in 
June,  at  Charleston,  and  nominated  candidates  for  state  officers.  Judge 
R.  B.  Carpenter,  an  ex-Confederate  soldier,  was  selected  as  the  candidate 
for  governor ;  and  Gen.  Matthew  C.  Butler,  an  ex-Confederate  officer,  now 
United  States  Senator,  for  lieutenant-governor.  But  the  new  party  was 
doomed  to  overwhelming  defeat.  Governor  Scott  was  re-elected  by  a  ma 
jority  of  33,500  in  a  total  vote  of  136,000 ;  and  his  colored  colleague  on  the 
ticket,  Ranier,  was  elected  lieutenant-governor  by  a  majority  of  31,000. 
The  Republican  platform  complimented  Governor  Scott  upon  his  "wise, 
economical,  and  honest"  administration  of  affairs.  It  insisted  on  a  "con 
tinuance  of  strict  and  close  economy"  in  all  departments  of  the  govern 
ment.  The  public  debt  had  been  augmented  by  two  millions,  it  is  true ; 
and  there  was  nothing  to  show  for  the  expenditure  except  the  sudden  eleva 
tion  of  certain  needy  adventurers,  and  illiterate  "field  hands"  from  ex 
treme  poverty  to  affluence.  There  had  also  been  a  four-fold  increase  of 
taxes.  This  situation  was  heralded  as  a  subject  of  public  congratulation. 

The  legislature,  in  1871,  made  the  novel  attempt  to  raise  means  by  au 
thorizing  the  issue  of  "  sterling  bonds."  Having  exhausted  their  credit  at 
home,  they  vainly  attempted  to  entice  the  English  capitalists,  by  issuing 
bonds  especially  adapted  to  that  market,  which  promised  to  pay  six  per 
cent,  interest.  The  amount  authorized  was  £1,200,000,  or  nearly  six  mil 
lions  of  dollars.  But  the  bait  was  not  caught  at.  The  scheme  fell  to  the 
ground.  The  bonded  debt  now  rose  from  $5,790,000  in  1868,  to  $9,528,- 
ooo  in  September,  1871.  Governor  Scott,  in  an  official  statement  made  to 
the  committee  of  Congress  sent  to  investigate  the  condition  of  the  "  insur- 

32 


506  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

gent  states,"  gave  figures  showing  that  the  bonded  debt,  prior  to  the  war, 
W7as  $4,046,540.16;  that  the  provisional  government  added  $1,023,473.94, 
making  $5,070,014.10  ;  and  that  the  amount  of  bonds  issued  by  the  Repub 
licans,  in  their  three  years'  administration,  was  $4,458,550.  The  public 
debt  at  the  meeting  of  the  legislature  in  November,  1872,  was  $15,851,000. 
The  estimate  of  expenditures  for  1873  was  $2,054,000,  in  addition  to  $1,266,- 
•ooo  for  the  deficiency  of  1871.  There  were  contingent  liabilities  also, 
amounting  to  $4,797,000,  arising  from  the  indorsement  of  the  bonds  of  rail 
road  companies.  , 

Franklin  J.  Moses,  Jr.,  was  elected  governor  in  1872.  As  already  stated 
in  this  chapter,  he  was  a  native  of  South  Carolina.  His  administration  was 
even  more  corrupt  than  that  of  any  of  his  predecessors.  His  father,  then 
chief  justice  of  the  state  supreme  court,  was  an  honorable  man.  Governor 
Moses  was  criminally  indicted  while  in  office,  but  he  escaped  conviction  on 
some  technical  point  in  respect  to  the  jurisdiction  to  try  a  governor  in  the 
courts  before  his  removal  by  impeachment.  Since  his  retirement  from 
executive  cares,  ex-Governor  Moses'  adventures  and  financial  exploits  in 
Northern  cities  have  furnished  the  local  reporters  of  police  courts  with  not 
a  few  disgraceful  items.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  Southern  men  of  this  and 
the  Swepson  type  —  men  of  high  social  standing  (and  they  were  in  every 
reconstructed  state) ,  the  Northern  adventurers  would  have  been  far  less  suc 
cessful  in  their  spoliations. 

In  1874,  the  former  attorney-general,  Daniel  H.  Chamberlain,  was 
elected  governor.  He  was  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  a  distinguished  soldier, 
and  a  gentleman  of  scholarly  and  executive  ability.  Like  Governor  Ames, 
of  Mississippi,  he  had  clean  hands  in  financial  matters  ;  but  he  was  no  less 
in  the  toils  of  the  spoil-hunters.  Nothing  short  of  their  total  dispersion 
could  give  honest  administration  under  any  executive.  But  the  change  from 
Moses  to  Chamberlain  was  a  vast  improvement  in  the  dreary  waste  of  con 
gressional  reconstruction.  The  new  governor  recommended  a  re-assessment 
of  property.  He  thought  the  result  would  be  a  falling  off  in  taxable  valua 
tion  amounting  to  $30,000,000  to  $40,000,000.  The  deficiency  of  revenue 
for  the  fiscal  year  ended  Oct.  31,  1874,  amounted  to  $472,619.54;  and 
that  for  the  preceding  year  was  $540,328.  The  public  indebtedness,  Oct. 
31,  1874,  is  stated  at  $17,017,651.23.  But  this  statement  is  based  on  the 
repudiation  of  $5,965,000  of  "conversion"  bonds  ;  and  perhaps,  also,  on  the 
proposed  refunding  of  the  debt  contracted  prior  to  March  i,  1870,  two  mil 
lions  of  which  had  already  been  exchanged  for  one  million  of  new  bonds. 

The  foregoing  is  a  summary  of  the  results  of  misgovernment  in  North 
and  South  Carolina.  It  is  all  that  can  be  presented  in  this  place.  Since 
the  world  began,  no  parallel  can  be  found  to  the  unblushing  knavery  which 
a  complete  history  of  carpet-bag  government  in  these  states  would  exhibit. 
If  the  entire  body  of  penitentiary  convicts  could  be  invested  with  supreme 


INCOMPLETE  RESTORATION.  507 

power  in  a  state,  they  could  not  present  a  more  revolting  mockery  of  all  that 
is  honorable  and  respectable  in  the  conduct  of  human  affairs.  The  knaves 
and  their  sympathizers,  North  and  South,  complain  that  the  tax-payers,  the 
men  of  character  and  intelligence  in  South  Carolina  and  other  states,  finally 
overthrew,  by  unfair  and  by  violent  means,  the  reign  of  scoundrelism,  en 
throned  by  ignorance.  If  ever  revolutionary  methods  were  justifiable  for  the 
overthrow  of  tyranny  and  robbery,  assuredly  the  carpet-bag  domination  in 
South  Carolina  called  for  it.  Only  scoundrels  and  hypocrites  will  pretend  to 
deplore  the  result. 

Nominally  North  and  South  Carolina  were  restored  to  their  full  Federal 
relations  on  June  25,  1868,  —  nearly  eight  years  after  they  had  so  violently 
severed  them.  They  passed  under  the  rod,  but  were  not  yet  through  the 
defile.  The  act  of  Congress  of  that  date  imposed  as  conditions  for  rehabili 
tation  :  first,  that  the  state  constitution  should  never  be  amended  so  as  to  de 
prive  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  of  the  right  to  vote  who  were  then 
entitled  to  vote  ;  second,  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  should  be  ratified  ;  and  third,  that  no  person  who  would 
be  ineligible  to  office  under  that  amendment  should  be  eligible  for  state 
office.  The  President  vetoed  the  bill  that  made  these  conditions,  but  it  was 
passed  over  the  veto  on  the  above  date.  The  vote  in  the  House  was,  yeas 
108,  nays  31.  North  Carolina  ratified  the  amendment  on  July  4,  1868,  and 
South  Carolina  five  days  after.  This  action  included  the  required  guarantees 
for  the  colored  vote  and  exclusion  from  office,  and  established  the  right  to  full 
restoration  in  the  Union,  —  but  it  was  not  until  many  years  after,  as  the  fore 
going  sketch  shows,  and  subsequent  chapters  set  forth,  that  this  right  was 
allowed  free  exercise.  The  Republican  party  did  not  concede  it  until  the 
year  1877,  °^  Electoral  Count  memory,  and  then  only  in  part  in  local  affairs. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 


RECONSTRUCTION   IN  THE  THIRD   MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

GENERAL  POPE  IN  COMMAND  -  REGISTRATION  AND  CONVENTION  IN  GEORGIA  — 
CONFLICT  BETWEEN  GOVERNOR  JENKINS  AND  GENERAL  POPE  —  RATIFICA 
TION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  —  GOVERNOR  BULLOCK  INAUGURATED  —  COL 
ORED  MEMBERS  EXPELLED  FROM  THE  LEGISLATURE  —  MILITARY  INVES 
TIGATION—THE  EXPELLED  RE-ADMITTED  -  THE  AMENDMENTS  RATIFIED 

—  FINANCIAL   CONDITION  —  FLIGHT    OF    BULLOCK  — THE    ELECTION  LAW  OF 
1870  —  ALABAMA  —  REMOVAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  OFFICERS  —  REGISTRATION  —  MOB 
IN  MOBILE  — THE   CONVENTION  — THE   PROPOSED  CONSTITUTION  OBNOXIOUS 

—  FAILURE    OF    RATIFICATION    BY    THE     PEOPLE  —  STATE    ADMITTED    NOT 
WITHSTANDING—THE    LEGISLATURE  —  STATE    INDEBTEDNESS  —  FLORIDA  — 
REGISTRATION— CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION— DIVISION  OF  THE  REPUBLI 
CANS  INTO  TWO  FACTIONS  — UNITY  RESTORED,  AND  A  CONSTITUTION  VOTED 

—  A  MILITARY  OFFICER  ACTS  AS  TEMPORARY  CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  CONVEN 
TION-CHARACTER  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  —  ELECTION  OF  GOVERNOR  REED 

—  CHARGES   OF  FRAUD  IN  THE  ELECTION  — ADMISSION  OF  THE  STATE  INTO 
THE  UNION  — THE  LEGISLATURE  — PROPOSED   IMPEACHMENT  OF  GOVERNOR 
REED  — JUDICIAL    PROCEEDINGS -- THE    IMPEACHMENT    ABANDONED  —  NEW 
IMPEACHMENT    PROPOSED  — BRIBERY,  CORRUPTION,  AND    FRAUD    CHARGED 
AGAINST  THE  GOVERNOR  — VOTE  AGAINST  IMPEACHMENT- ACTS  OF  USURPA 
TION—LEGISLATIVE    LEGERDEMAIN— REPUBLICAN    CANDIDATE   "COUNTED 
IN"  — THE     OSBORN     RING  —  A    THIRD     ATTEMPT    AT     IMPEACHMENT    ALSO 
FAILS  — THE    DEMOCRATS    REGAIN    CONTROL    OF    THE    STATE  — FINANCIAL 
CONDITION. 

IT  has  already  been  stated  that  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida  formed  the 
Third  military  district  under  the  Reconstruction  acts,  and  that  Maj.-Gen. 
John  Pope  was  assigned  to  the  command  of  it.     He  announced  from  his 
headquarters  at  Montgomery,  Alabama,  on  April   ist,  that  he  had  as 
sumed  the  command  of  the  district ;  and  that  the  sub-districts  of  Georgia 
and  Alabama  would  remain  under  the  commanders  then  on  duty.     He  fur 
ther  announced  that   the    civil   officers  in  Georgia,  Florida,  and  Alabama, 
if  they  administered  justice  impartially  and  faithfully,  would,  unless  otherwise 
directed  in  special  cases,  be  allowed  to  retain  their  offices  until  the  expiration 
of  their  terms  of  service.     He  expressed  the  hope  that  no  necessity  would 
arise  for  the  interposition  of  military  authority  in  the  civil  administration. 


GEORGIA  UNDER  MILITARY  RULE.  509 

Civil  officers  would  be  required  to  adhere  strictly  to  their  official  duties,  and 
to  refrain  from  using  any  influence  whatever  tending  to  deter  or  dissuade 
others  from  uniting  in  the  work  of  reconstruction.  He  announced,  also, 
that  no  elections  to  fill  vacant  offices  would  be  held  pending  the  period  of 
reconstruction  ;  and  that  such  vacancies  would  be  filled  under  appointment 
by  the  commanding  general.  On  April  8,  1867,  the  commanding  general 
issued  directions  to  the  sub-district  commanders  of  the  three  states  for  a 
registration  of  the  voters.  As  these  directions  were  necessarily  conformable 
to  the  acts  of  Congress  and  similar  to  those  set  forth  in  preceding  chapters, 
it  is  needless  to  recite  them  here. 

The  result  of  the  registration  in  Georgia  gave  192,235  names  of  persons 
entitled  to  vote  for  delegates  to  the  constitutional  convention:  96,262  were 
white,  and  95,973  were  colored.  The  vote  for  a  convention  was  102,282, 
and  the  vote  against  it  was  4,127.  As  might  be  inferred,  the  largest  part  of 
the  vote  was  cast  by  the  colored  men  ;  probably  few  of  them  failed  to  exer 
cise  the  privilege  on  that,  their  first  opportunity.  Only  36,500  of  the  votes 
were  cast  by  the  whites.  Of  the  166  delegates  chosen  on  the  same  day,  133 
were  white,  and  thirty-three  were  colored.  The  convention  met  on  the  9th 
of  December,  1867,  at  Atlanta,  and  it  remained  in  session  until  the  23d, 
without  entering  upon  the  work  of  framing  a  constitution.  This  time  was 
spent  in  passing  ordinances  of  a  legislative  character,  and  among  them  one 
for  the  stay  of  executions  for  the  sale  of  property.  The  convention  memo 
rialized  Congress  for  the  repeal  of  the  cotton  tax,  and  on  the  23d  it  adjourned 
until  the  8th  of  January,  1868. 

General  Pope,  who  had  been  applied  to  by  citizens  to  exercise  his  au 
thority  in  stopping  the  sale  of  property  under  execution,  gave  an  answer 
which  does  him  great  honor.  It  contrasts  favorably  with  the  high-handed 
course  of  other  military  commanders.  He  said:  "  I  know  of  no  con 
ceivable  circumstance  that  would  induce  me  to  interfere  by  military  orders 
with  the  great  business  of  the  state,  or  with  the  relation  of  debtor  or  creditor 
under  state  laws,  except  perhaps  in  individual  cases,  where  very  manifest  in 
justice  had  been  done.  The  only  military  orders  which  I  have  issued,  or  in 
tend  to  issue,  in  this  district  are  such  as  I  consider  necessary  to  the  execution 
of  the  Reconstruction  acts." 

Charles  J.  Jenkins,  who  was  elected  governor  by  the  white  people  on 
President  Johnson's  plan  of  reconstruction,  set  himself  in  opposition  to  the 
Reconstruction  acts  of  Congress.  He  endeavored  to  have  their  constitution 
ality  tested  by  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court.  This  course  was  in  conflict 
with  the  general  order  of  the  commander,  which  forbade  all  state  officials  to 
attempt  to  thwart  the  measures  of  Congress.  The  governor's  attention  was 
called  to  the  subject  by  General  Pope,  who  informed  him  in  respectful  and 
even  regretful  language,  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  him  either  to  conform 
to  the  order  or  to  resign.  The  governor  consented  to  conform.  The  next 


510  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

year  he  was  removed  by  General  Meade,  the  successor  of  General  Pope,  for 
refusing  to  issue  an  executive  warrant  on  the  treasurer  of  the  state  for  $40,- 
ooo,  to  pay  the  members  of  the  constitutional  convention.  General  Meade 
acted  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  Reconstruction  acts,  but 
he  treated  Governor  Jenkins  with  marked  courtesy. 

The  constitution  framed  by  the  convention  guaranteed  equal  rights  and 
privileges  to  all  citizens,  without  distinction  of  race  or  color,  abolished  and 
forever  excluded  slavery,  and  declared  that  Georgia  should  ever  remain  a 
part  of  the  American  Union.  These  were  essential  conditions  of  restoration 
to  the  Union.  The  constitution  also  provided  for  universal  suffrage,  includ 
ing  the  classes  that  were  excluded  from  registration  and  the  right  to  vote  for 
delegates  to  the  convention.  There  is  no  full  statement  of  the  vote  on  the 
ratification  of  the  constitution.  The  majority  was  17,699.  In  the  guberna 
torial  election,  Bullock,  the  Republican  candidate,  received  83,146  votes^ 
against  76,099  for  the  gallant  John  B.  Gordon,  the  Democratic  candidate. 

General  Meade,  Feb.  22,  1868,  issued  a  general  order  for  carrying  into 
effect  the  resolutions  of  the  convention  forbidding  imprisonment  for  debt* 
No  distinction  was  drawn  in  the  resolutions,  nor  in  the  general  order, 
between  ordinary  cases  of  inability  to  pay,  and  those  characterized  by 
fraudulent  concealment  of  goods  and  chattels. 

At  the  close  of  the  session,  a  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  102 
to  twenty-six,  asking  Congress  to  remove  the  political  disabilities  of  all  the 
citizens  of  the  state.  The  governor-elect,  Mr.  Bullock,  was  appointed  pro 
visional  governor  in  place  of  General  Ruger,  by  General  Meade,  pending  the 
decision  of  Congress  upon  the  question  of  re-admitting  the  state  to  its 
"  practical  relation"  to  the  Union.  The  legislature  met  on  the  4th  of  July, 
at  which  time  the  governor  was  inaugurated.  The  senate  consisted  of  forty- 
four  members,  and  was  equally  divided  between  the  two  parties.  The 
house  of  representatives  consisted  of  102  Democrats  and  seventy-three  Re 
publicans.  The  senate  contained  three  colored  men,  and  the  house  twenty- 
five. 

Congress,  by  act  of  June  25,  1868,  required  the  legislature  of  Georgia,  as 
conditions  of  restoration  to  the  Union,  to  ratify  the  Fourteenth  Amendment 
to  the  United  States  Constitution,  and  to  abrogate  a  clause  of  the  state  consti 
tution  which  forbade  the  courts  to  entertain  suits  for  debts  contracted  prior 
to  the  first  day  of  June,  1865.  This  act  also  prescribed  as  a  primary  con 
dition  of  re-admission,  that  no  change  should  ever  be  made  in  the  constitution 
whereby  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  already  entitled  thereunder  should 
be  deprived  of  the  right  to  vote.  All  these  conditions  were  finally  com 
plied  with. 

The  legislature  expelled  all  the  colored  members  from  both  branches  of 
that  body.  This  scandalous  proceeding  was  attempted  to  be  justified  on  the 
ground  that  Article  XI.  declared  valid  all  acts  passed  by  any  legislative 


INCREASE  OF  THE  STATE  DEBT.  51 1 

body,  sitting  in  the  state  as  such,  since  the  nineteenth  day  of  January,  1861, 
including  the  laws  known  as  the  Code  of  Georgia,  and  the  acts  amendatory 
thereto  as  passed  since  that  time,  which  said  code  and  acts  were  embodied 
in  the  printed  book  known  as  Irivirfs  Code;  except  such  of  those  legis 
lative  acts  as  might  be  inconsistent  with  the  supreme  law  therein  recognized, 
viz.,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  consequences  of  this  conduct  were  the  refusal  of  Congress  to  admit 
the  state  to  representation,  and  its  re-subjection  to  military  rule.  The  gov 
ernor  was  authorized  by  Congress  to  require  of  the  members  who  had  been 
elected  to  the  legislature,  a  test  oath  to  the  effect  that  they  had  not  held  office 
before  the  war,  and  afterwards  participated  in  the  rebellion.  The  negro 
members  were  all  re-admitted,  and  twenty-one  white  men  were  excluded  by 
a  military  commission  of  investigation.  At  the  first  session,  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  to  the  National  Constitution  was  rejected,  for  the  Democratic 
majority  had  not  only  thrown  out  twenty-eight  colored  members,  but  had 
admitted  as  many  white  men  of  their  own  party  to  the  vacant  seats, —  they 
having  received  the  next  highest  number  of  votes  ;  thus  they  had  deprived 
the  negroes  of  the  right  to  be  represented,  as  well  as  the  right  to  act  as  repre 
sentatives.  Under  the  act  of  Congress  remanding  the  state  to  military  con 
trol,  Bullock  and  his  friends  turned  the  tables  on  their  opponents,  and  ad 
mitted  to  seats  twenty-one  Republicans  in  place  of  the  twenty-one  Democrats 
who  were  pronounced  disqualified,  for  participation  in  the  rebellion.  These 
changes  gave  decided  majorities  to  the  Republicans  in  both  houses,  and  both 
the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments  were  ratified. 

Brief  as  was  its  rule,  the  improvised  Republican  party  in  Georgia  man 
aged  to  run  up  the  public  debt  to  three  or  four  times  the  amount  that  had 
been  contracted  prior  to  its  accession  to  power.  The  state — as  it  may  be  said 
in  view  of  its  resources — was  almost  free  from  debt  at  the  beginning  of  the  war. 
The  bonded  debt  is  stated  at  $1,718,750,  in  1861.  The  interest  on  the  debt 
was  $105,890.  This  is  the  statement  of  the  American  Annual  Encyclo- 
pccdia  for  1871.  Mr.  Poland's  committee  of  investigation  states  that  the  debt 
of  Georgia  in  1860  was  $3,170,000,  and  that  it  amounted  to  $5,706,500  in 
1865.  The  debt  incurred  in  aid  of  the  rebellion  was  $15,104,726  ;  but  this, 
of  course,  was  repudiated.  The  same  authority  states  the  debt  in  1868  at 
$6,544,500,  when  Bullock's  Republican  administration  was  inaugurated. 

The  debt  and  liabilities  of  the  state,  in  1872,  are  given  as  follows  : 

Debt, $8,618,750 

Contingent  and  prospective  liabilities  for  railroads,         .          .          30,000,000 

Mr.  Angier,  the  treasurer,  who  was  a  northern-born  Republican,  makes  a 
statement  showing  that  the  contingent  debt  was  even  greater  than  is  stated 
above.  He  charges  Bullock  with  having  issued  $6,000,000  of  state  bonds 
for  which  there  was  no  need,  and  for  the  use  of  which  he  seems  to  have 


512  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

rendered  no  return.  The  ordinary  expenses  of  the  state  government  dur 
ing  the  four  years  ending  with  1860  averaged  $318,000  ;  while  during  Bul 
lock's  administration  of  two  and  a  half  years,  commencing  in  1868,  the  an 
nual  rate  of  ordinary  expenditures  was  $858,000.  It  must  be  understood 
that  this  statement  of  expenditures  is  exclusive  of  interest  on  the  public  debt, 
and  of  appropriations  for  railroads  or  other  public  works,  and  public  schools. 
Mr.  Angier  states,  also,  that  the  rate  of  state  taxation  increased  six-fold  on 
the  amount  paid  in  1860. 

"Governor  Bullock,"  says  the  minority  report  of  the  Poland  Commit 
tee,  "  fled,  to  avoid  impeachment  for  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.  His 
partner,  Kimball,  from  the  State  of  Maine,  who  had  got  to  be  president  of 
seven  of  the  great  railroads  of  the  state,  though  a  bankrupt  in  1868,  was 
shorn  of  his  power.  Blodgett,  who  was  indicted  for  criminal  offenses,  was 
so  notoriously  corrupt  that  he  could  not  be  admitted  into  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States."  Kimball  claimed  that  he  was  worth  half  a  million. 

In  October,  1870,  the  Republican  legislature  passed  an  act  providing 
that  the  elections  should  be  held  from  day  to  day,  for  three  days,  and  forbade 
any  person  from  challenging  a  vote.  The  obvious  purpose  of  such  legisla 
tion  was  to  facilitate  fraudulent  voting  by  giving  time  for  passing  from  one 
precinct,  or  one  county,  to  another.  The  act  also  placed  it  in  the  power  of 
the  governor  to  prevent  elections  at  such  precincts  as  he  should  neglect  to 
appoint  election  managers  for. 

There  was  no  public  or  private  record  kept  of  the  ages  .of  the  negroes  ; 
and  even  if  such  record  evidence  existed,  it  was  subordinated  by  this  act  to 
the  apparent  full  age  of  the  person  claiming  the  right  to  vote.  The  eighth 
section  was  conceived  in  the  same  spirit:  "Sec.  8.  They  shall  not  permit 
any  person  to  challenge  any  vote,  or  hinder,  or  delay,  or  interfere  with 
any  other  person  in  the  free  and  speedy  casting  of  his  ballot." 

Maj.-Gen.  Wager  Swayne  was  placed  in  charge  of  the  State  of  Alabama, 
and  this  fact  was  announced  in  a  general  order,  April  2,  1867. 

On  the  1 5th  of  April,  General  Pope,  the  district  commander,  in  a  special 
order,  set  aside  a  municipal  election  which  was  held  at  Tuscumbia  on  the 
first  day  of  the  month,  in  violation  of  orders  from  the  general-in-chief  of  the 
army.  Lemuel  S.  Cockburn  was  appointed  mayor  of  the  town.  On  May 
1 4th,  General  Swayne  removed  the  mayor  and  city  council  of  Selma  and 
appointed  others  in  their  places. 

On  May  ist,  the  colored  people,  in  state  convention  at  Mobile,  adopted 
resolutions  which  were  of  a  less  conciliatory  nature  than  those  of  former 
meetings,  and  which  complained  of  combinations  among  planters  to  refuse 
them  employment  if  they  should  unite  with  the  Republican  party.  The 
convention  called  on  Congress  to  protect  the  laborers  against  such  combina 
tions. 


ALABAMA  UNDER  MILITARY  RULE.  513 

General  Order  No.  20,  prescribing  the  mode  of  registration,  was  issued 
May  2ist.  The  result  of  the  registration  was  72,748  white  voters,  and  88,- 
243  colored  ;  total,  166,991.  A  census  taken  by  the  state  authorities  in  1866 
returned  261,004  wmte  males,  and  214,253  colored  males.  According  to 
these  figures,  a  full  registration  of  the  white  men  would  have  shown  about 
107,000. 

It  deserves  to  be  noticed  that  a  mob  in  Mobile,  May  i4th,  broke  up  a 
public  meeting,  at  which  Representative  W.  D.  Kelley,  of  Philadelphia, 
spoke.  Two  men,  one  white  and  one  colored,  were  fatally  wounded  by 
pistol  shots.  The  disturbers  of  the  peace,  according  to  the  statement  of 
General  Swayne,  were  a  few  ruffians,  while  the  body  of  the  people  had  no 
part  in  the  affair.  But  the  unruly  elements  in  society  were  set  in  motion  by 
this  event,  and  led  to  the  removal  of  the  mayor  and  other  officers  of  the  city, 
and  the  appointment  of  others  in  their  stead. 

The  state  convention  to  make  a  new  constitution  was  authorized  by  a 
vote  of  90,238,  against  5,628.  The  election  was  held  October  ist,  2d  and  3d, 
1867.  There  were  100  delegates  elected  at  the  same  time,  of  whom  ninety- 
six  were  Republicans,  or  "radicals,"  including  seventeen  colored  persons, 
and  four  were  Democrats,  or  ''conservatives."  A  revision  of  the  registration 
added  about  five  thousand  voters,  but  still  the  total  vote  cast  for  and  against 
the  convention  was  little  more  than  a  majority  of  the  whole.  The  convention 
assembled  November  5th,  at  Montgomery,  in  conformity  with  a  general  order 
of  General  Pope.  Eighty-nine  members  met  at  the  time  appointed,  and 
elected  E.  W.  Peck,  of  Tuscaloosa,  an  old  citizen  and  lawyer  of  Northern 
birth,  as  president.  He  is  said  to  have  been  a  Union  man,  or  an  opponent 
of  secession,  of  Whig  antecedents.  A  resolution  requiring  of  members  an 
oath  to  support  the  constitution,  and  fidelity  to  the  trust  reposed  in  them, 
was  adopted.  A  colored  member  offered  the  following  resolution,  which 
was  adopted : 

"  Resolved,  That  this  convention  do  memorialize  Congress  to  remove  all 
the  political  disabilities  of  those  citizens  of  Alabama,  at  its  next  session,  who 
have  materially  aided  in  the  reconstruction  of  said  state  on  the  plan  proposed 
by  Congress."  Another  resolution,  in  a  better  spirit,  was  adopted,  which 
made  the  existing  constitution  of  Alabama  the  basis  of  the  new  one,  on 
which  such  amendments  should  be  engrafted  as  might  be  necessary  in  order 
to  conform  to  the  new  order  of  things,  and,  at  the  same  time,  secure  equal 
political  rights  to  all,  without  distinction  of  color.  General  Pope  was  invited 
to  take  a  seat  in  the  convention,  and  in  a  brief  address  he  advised  modera 
tion  in  speech  and  in  action. 

A  resolution  calling  on  General  Pope  to  supersede  the  government  estab 
lished  under  President  Lincoln's  policy  was  voted  down,  by  yeas  forty-five, 
nays  forty-two  ;  most  of  the  colored  men  voted  in  the  affirmative. 

The  constitution  adopted  was  justly  obnoxious  to  the  white  race.     It 


514  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

disfranchised  all  who  were  denied  by  the  Reconstruction  acts  the  right  to 
vote  for  delegates  to  the  convention.  As  a  condition  of  voting,  it  required 
of  those  who  were  permitted  to  register,  an  oath  of  recantation  of  all  former 
theories  of  secession,  and  it  required  them  to  vote  for  or  against  the  ratifica 
tion  of  the  constitution.  It  also  enjoined  upon  the  legislature  the  establish 
ment  of  a  system  of  mixed  common  schools  for  white  and  colored  children. 
These  odious  features  were  engrafted  upon  the  constitution  by  the  men  of 
Northern  birth,  who  knew  that  their  tenure  of  power  depended  upon  keep 
ing  down  the  intelligent  native  whites.  The  negro  members  were,  for  the 
most  part,  against  the  prescriptive  and  offensive  policy.  It  was  provided  in 
the  Reconstruction  acts  that  the  constitutions  to  be  adopted  by  the  conven 
tions  of  the'  Southern  States  must  be  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  registered 
voters,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  their  acceptance  by  Congress,  and  to  the 
re-admission  of  the  state  into  fellowship  in  the  Union  ;  or,  as  more  correctly 
stated,  that  a  majority  of  the  registered  voters  must  vote  on  the  question  of 
ratification.  The  language  of  the  fifth  section  of  the  supplemental  act 
passed  March  21,  1867,  is  as  follows : 

"  SEC.  5.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  if,  according  to  said  returns-, 
the  constitution  shall  be  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  registered 
electors,  qualified  as  herein  specified,  cast  at  said  election,  at  least  one-half 
of  all  the  registered  voters  voting  upon  the  question  of  such  ratification,  the 
president  of  the  convention  shall  transmit  a  copy  of  the  same,  duly  certified, 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  who  shall  transmit  the  same  to  Con- 
gress."  .... 

The  people  of  Alabama  availed  themselves  of  this  clause  in  the  Recon 
struction  acts  to  defeat  the  constitution  by  non-action.  They  decided  not  to> 
vote  either  for  or  against  the  constitution,  and  carried  out  their  resolution  to 
that  effect. 

The  vote,  as  reported  by  the  military  commander,  was  69,807  for  the 
constitution,  and  against  it  only  1,005;  total,  70,812.  The  registered  vote 
was  165,812;  so  that  the  vote  for  and  against  ratification  fell  far  short  of 
half.  When  the  question  came  before  the  House  of  Representatives  in 
March,  for  the  admission  of  Alabama,  Mr.  Thaddeus  Stevens  contended  that 
it  would  be  wrong  and  inconsistent  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  admit  the 
state,  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  enabling  act.  The  bill  for  admission 
wras  accordingly  recommitted,  and  it  was  decided  to  submit  the  constitution 
to  the  popular  vote  a  second  time,  for  ratification.  But  two  months  laterr 
and  before  another  vote  was  had,  he  voted  for  the  admission  of  Alabama, 
with  North  Carolina  and  other  states,  on  the  ground  that  "they  have  sent 
these  constitutions  here,  backed  in  every  instance,  even  in  that  of  Alabama,, 
by  a  majority  of  all  the  voters  in  the  state." 

The  act  for  the  admission  of  Alabama  was  passed  over  President  John 
son's  veto,  and  became  a  law,  June  25,  1868.  It  provided  as  conditions  of 


LEGISLATIVE  EXTRAVAGANCE.  515 


admission  that  the  constitution  of  the  state  should  never  be  so  modified  as  to 
take  away  the  right  to  vote  from  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  to  whom  it 
gave  that  right ;  and  that  the  legislature  should  ratify  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment. 

W.  H.  Smith,  who  had  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  for  gov 
ernor,  called  a  session  of  the  legislature  to  convene  July  13.  This  body  was 
elected  at  the  time  the  vote  was  cast  on  the  question  of  ratification,  when  the 
Democrats  abstained  from  voting ;  the  members  were,  therefore,  all  Repub 
licans.  The  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  were  ratified  by  both  houses.  Governor  Smith  recom 
mended  the  removal  of  all  political  disabilities  ;  and  made  an  earnest  appeal 
to  the  members  in  behalf  of  popular  education.  Among  the  first  acts  passed 
was  one  in  regard  to  the  pay  of  members  and  officers  of  the  legislature. 
The  members,  composed  of  Northern  adventurers,  needy  white  natives,  and 
some  thirty  men  of  color,  voted  themselves  $8  per  day,  the  secretary  $10, 
the  assistant  secretary  $8,  door-keeper  $6,  pages  $4,  chaplain  $4,  president 
of  the  senate  $12,  sergeant-at-arms  $6  ;  mileage,  80  cents.  But  the  governor 
vetoed  this  bill. 

This  legislature,  chosen  by  a  minority  of  the  people,  passed  a  bill  in 
tended  to  relieve  the  people  from  the  trouble  of  voting  for  President  and 
Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  by  assuming  that  duty  themselves. 
But  this  benevolent  purpose  was  defeated,  also,  by  the  executive  veto. 
After  an  adjournment  for  a  few  weeks  the  governor  issued  a  call  for  the  re 
assembling  of  the  legislature,  to  provide  for  a  new  registration  of  the  voters 
with  reference  to  the  Presidential  election.  An  act  to  this  effect  was  passed  ; 
and  as  a  guarantee  of  free  and  fair  voting,  it  was  made  a  misdemeanor  for 
any  person  to  challenge  a  voter.  The  Democrats  took  an  active  part  in  this 
election,  but  General  Grant  received  a  majority  over  Mr.  Seymour  of  2,480 
votes,  in  a  total  vote  of  148,452.  This  Republican  triumph  occurred  after 
the  troops  had  been  withdrawn,  and  after  the  military  had  been  superseded 
by  the  civil  rule. 

The  first  legislature  elected  under  the  new  constitution  contained  several 
members  who  could  neither  read  nor  write.  The  constitution  fixed  the  term 
of  state  senators  at  four  years.  One  half  were  to  go  out  every  two  years,  and 
those  chosen  at  the  first  election  were  required  by  the  constitution  to  draw  lots 
for  the  long  and  short  terms.  But  it  was  determined,  by  a  vote  of  sixteen  to 
ten,  that  all  should  hold  over,  in  spite  of  the  constitution.  The  same  legis 
lature,  without  a  shadow  of  authority,  and  in  violation  of  the  constitution, 
voted  to  declare  vacant  all  the  municipal  offices  of  Mobile.  The  governor, 
Smith,  who  had  done  well  in  other  things,  was  so  weak  as  to  sign  this  out 
rageous  measure.  The  mayor  and  other  officers  were  Republicans ;  but 
they  were  not  radical  enough. 

The  election  in  November,  1870,  resulted  favorably  to   the   Democrats. 


516        THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

They  elected  the  governor  and  a  large  majority  of  the  house  of  representa 
tives.  The  senators  held  over,  as  has  been  explained. 

The  highest  votes  polled  at  this  election  by  the  opposing  parties  were, 
78,682  for  the  Democratic  candidate  for  lieutenant-governor,  and  76,292  for 
the  Republican  candidate  for  governor,  making  a  total  of  154,974.  Lindsay, 
the  Democratic  candidate  for  governor,  defeated  Smith,  the  Republican,  by 
i  ,441  votes.  The  election  passed  off  quietly,  but  it  was  not  acquiesced  in 
without  a  struggle.  The  state  superintendent  of  public  instruction,  Mr. 
Cloud,  refused  to  yield  the  office  to  his  successful  rival,  Mr.  Hodgson,  on  the 
ground  that  the  latter  had  sent  a  challenge  to  fight  a  duel. 

The  vote  having  been  counted  by  the  assembly,  and  Lindsay  having  been 
recognized  as  governor,  Smith  at  length  yielded. 

The  minority  report  of  the  Poland  Committee  sums  up  the  actual  and 
contingent  indebtedness  of  Alabama  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1872,  as 
follows : 

The  direct  bonded  indebtedness  of  Alabama  is        .          .  $5,442,300  oo 

The  indebtedness  on  account  of  the  sc'hool  fund  is  .  .  2?795?995  05 
Outstanding  certificates,  auditor's  warrants,  and  temporary 

loan, 623,672  32 


The  total, $8,861,967  37 

To  this  must  be  added  amount  borrowed  by  Governor  Lind 
say  to  pay  the  interest  on  Alabama  and  Chattanooga 
bonds, $545,000  oo 


Altogether  these  items  foot  up, $9,406,967  37 

The  contingent  liabilities  of  the  state  on  bonds  indorsed    for 

nine  railroad  companies  are  stated  to  be         .         .         .  $15,420,000  oo 

The  minority  report  states  that  $7,300,000  of  these  bonds  had,  up  to  that 
date,  virtually  become  a  part  of  the  direct  indebtedness  of  the  state.  They 
were  issued  in  favor  of  the  Alabama  and  Chattanooga  Railroad,  which  com 
pany  had  gone  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver. 

The  majority  report  endeavors  to  divide  the  responsibility  for  extravagant 
appropriations  between  the  two  parties  in  Alabama ;  and  it  is  undoubtedly 
true  that  a  wild  spirit  of  railroad  building  existed  among  the  people.  But 
the  peculation  seems  to  have  been  monopolized  by  the  Republicans.  The 
Democrats,  in  1867,  were  responsible  for  the  scheme  of  encouraging  rail 
road  building  by  a  general  offer  of  $12,000  per  mile.  But  the  execution  of 
the  act  fell  to  the  hands  of  the  Republicans,  who  the  next  year  increased  the 
offer  of  state  aid  to  $16,000  per  mile  ;  while  the  Republican  governor  disre- 


FLORIDA  UNDER  MILITARY  RULE.  SI7 

garded  the  limitations  and  conditions  of  the  grants,  in  his  liberal  distribution 
of  the  bounty. 

The  State  of  Florida,  part  of  the  Third  military  district,  under  the  com 
mand  of  Maj.-Gen.  John  Pope,  was,  as  a  sub-district,  placed  under  the  con 
trol,  for  reconstruction  purposes,  of  Col.  John  T.  Sprague,  of  the  Seventh 
United  States  Infantry.  His  headquarters  were  at  Tallahassee.  The  regis 
tration  showed  11,148  white  voters,  and  15,434  colored  voters ;  total,  26,- 
582.  The  votes  cast  on  the  question  of  a  constitutional  convention  were  14,- 
503, — all  but  203  being  for  the  convention.  The  convention  met  on  the  2oth 
of  January,  1868.  Of  the  forty-six  delegates  composing  it,  all  but  three 
were  Republicans.  This  included  eighteen  colored  men.  Its  first  president 
was  a  New-Yorker.  He  was  named  Richards.  He  subsequently  turned  out 
to  be  ineligible  and  was  expelled  from  the  body.  He  was  succeeded  by 
Horatio  Jenkins  after  the  military  commander,  Colonel  Sprague,  had  inter 
vened  to  reconcile  the  two  discordant  factions  into  which  the  Republicans 
were  split,  and  had  even  officiated  as  temporary  chairman.  These  facts 
make  up  a  serio-comic  presentation  of  politics,  as  to  which  the  writer  cannot 
take  part,  without  making  history  ludicrous. 

The  constitution  that  was  subsequently  framed  by  this  body,  though  too 
long  for  a  fundamental  law,  was  perhaps  the  most  liberal  and  rational  of 
any  of  those  made  during  that  prolific  period  of  fundamental  fooling.  Suf 
frage  was  to  be  universal ;  and  the  judges  and  all  state  officers  were  to  be 
appointed  by  the  governor  and  confirmed  by  the  state  senate.  The  vote  on 
the  ratification  of  the  constitution  took  place  on  the  first  Monday,  Tuesday, 
and  Wednesday  in  May.  It  resulted  :  for  ratification,  14,520  ;  against  ratifi 
cation,  9,491.  Harrison  Reed,  who  was  a  man  of  Northern  birth  and  had 
settled  in  Florida  at  the  close  of  the  war,  was  elected  governor  by  a  vote  of 
14,170;  Scott,  conservative,  receiving  7,852,  and  Walker,  2,262. 

The  result  of  the  legislative  election  was,  that  the  senate  was  composed 
of  nine  Republicans  and  two  Democrats,  and  the  house  of  thirty-three 
Republicans  and  seven  Democrats.  The  legislature  met  on  the  first  of 
June.  It  ratified  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  as  required  by  the  Recon 
struction  acts.  The  re-admission  of  the  state  to  representation  in  Congress 
was  accomplished  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  25,  1868,  upon  the  same 
essential  conditions  respecting  the  adoption  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment 
and  perpetuity  of  the  right  to  the  ballot  which  were  imposed  in  the  case 
of  Alabama.  Four  days  afterwards,  General  Meade  succeeded  General  Orr. 
The  former  gave  orders  to  turn  over  all  the  state  offices  to  the  newly  con 
stituted  state  government. 

The  states  of  North  and  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida 
had  now  undergone  the  process  of  reconstruction.  It  was  announced  from 
the  War  Department  that  the  Second  and  Third  military  districts,  which 


518  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

comprised  those  states,  had  ceased  to  exist.  The  ceremony  of  the  surren 
der  of  the  military  and  provisional  governments  in  the  State  of  Florida,  and 
of  the  installation  of  the  newly-elected  state  officers,  took  place  in  Tallahas 
see  on  the  4th  of  July,  1868,  in  the  presence  of  the  legislature. 

The  session  of  the  legislature  lasted  two  months.  An  adjournment  took 
place  till  the  3d  of  November.  On  that  day,  the  governor,  for  some  inex 
plicable  reason,  issued  a  proclamation  calling  an  extraordinary  session  of  the 
legislature  for  eight  o'clock  the  same  evening. 

Horatio  Jenkins,  who  had  headed  the  revolt  against  Richards,  the  first 
president  of  the  convention,  proposed  to  impeach  Governor  Reed  because  the 
latter  had  declared  the  seats  of  Jenkins  and  of  three  other  members  of  the 
legislature  vacant  on  the  ground  that  they  held  state  offices  —  the  constitu 
tion  expressly  forbidding  the  combination  of  such  functions  in  the  same  per 
son.  Jenkins,  although  a  member  of  the  senate,  the  tribunal  before  which 
the  impeachment  should  be  tried,  appeared  before  the  house  of  representa 
tives,  and  presented  articles  of  impeachment  against  the  governor.  They 
charged  him  with  falsehood  and  lying,  with  signing  commissions  in  blank 
and  allowing  irresponsible  persons  to  issue  them,  with  declaring  seats  in  the 
legislature  vacant,  contrary  to  the  right  of  the  matter,  with  embezzlement  of 
state  securities  and  money,  and  finally  with  corruption  and  bribery  in  the  dis 
tribution  of  offices.  The  house  promptly  voted  the  articles  of  impeachment ; 
yeas  25,  nays  7.  The  senate  was  informed  thereof  with  the  usual  formalities. 
A  committee  was  appointed  to  wait  on  the  lieutenant-governor,  inform  him 
of  the  proceedings  against  the  governor,  and  invite  him  to  assume  the  duties 
of  the  executive  as  provided  for  in  the  constitution.  On  the  same  day,  No 
vember  6th,  the  lieutenant-governor,  W.  H.  Gleason,  issued  a  proclamation 
announcing  the  impeachment  of  the  governor  by  the  house  of  representatives 
and  the  lieutenant-governor's  assumption  of  the  executive  duties.  The  next 
day,  November  yth,  the  house  adopted  a  joint  resolution  for  an  adjournment 
to  the  first  Monday  in  January,  1869.  But  the  senate  refused  to  concur. 
The  acting  governor  sent  a  message  to  the  two  houses,  proroguing  them  to 
the  day  named  in  the  resolution. 

In  disregard  of  the  impeachment  proceedings,  Governor  Reed  continued 
to  exercise  the  executive  duties.  He  based  his  action  on  the  ground  that 
the  senate  had  no  quorum,  and  that  consequently  no  legislature  had  assem 
bled  in  obedience  to  the  call.  Mr.  Alden,  the  secretary  of  state,  recognized 
Mr.  Gleason  as  acting  governor,  and  co-operated  with  him  in  the  admin 
istration  of  affairs.  Governor  Reed  treated  Alden's  course  as  equivalent  to 
resignation.  He  appointed  Jonathan  C.  Gibbs,  a  colored  man,  in  his  stead. 
At  the  same  time,  the  governor  laid  all  the  circumstances  before  the  supreme 
court  of  the  state,  and  requested  answers  to  these  questions:  ist,  whether 
the  legislature,  consisting  of  a  senate  and  assembly,  had  convened  in  extraor 
dinary  session  on  November  3d ;  and  2d,  whether  the  proceedings  in  his  im- 


FLORIDA  UNDER  CARPET-BAG  RULE.  519 

peachment  were  legal  and  binding  on  him,  compelling  him  to  surrender  the 
executive  office.  The  court  concurred  substantially  in  the  opinion  of  Asso 
ciate  Justice  James  D.  Westcott,  which  was  in  these  words  :  "  It  is  therefore 
my  opinion  that,  on  the  facts  submitted  in  your  communication,  and  upon  the 
authorities  and  precedents  cited,  twelve  senators  did  not  constitute  a  quorum 
to  do  business  ;  and  hence  that  there  was  no  senate  within  the  meaning  of 
this  clause  of  the  constitution  ;  and  that  a  legislature  of  the  State  of  Florida, 
.consisting  of  a  senate  and  assembly  vested  with  the  legislative  authority 
of  the  state,  did  not  convene  in  extraordinary  session  under  your  procla 
mation  of  Nov.  3,  1868."  There  seems  to  have  been  no  doubt  expressed  by 
the  supreme  court  about  its  authority  to  render  an  opinion  in  the  case.  But, 
in  the  suit  of  ouster  against  Mr.  Gleason,  on  a  writ  of  quo  ivarranto  on  the 
•ground  that  he  was  ineligible,  being  a  non-resident  of  Florida,  he  denied 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  This  plea  availed  him  nothing,  however,  and 
a  judgment  of  ouster  was  rendered  against  him,  restraining  him  from  exercis 
ing  the  functions  of  the  office  of  lieutenant-governor.  From  that  decision 
Mr.  Gleason  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  A 
"  citation  writ"  was  granted  him  by  Justice  Miller,  returnable  on  the  first 
Monday  in  December,  1869.  The  legal  effect  of  this  writ  was  to  continue 
Gleason  in  office,  pending  the  case  before  that  court ;  but,  practically,  it 
availed  nothing,  as  the  impeachment  was  abandoned  by  the  assembly.  It 
was  even  ignored  by  both  branches  of  the  legislature,  at  the  next  session, 
Jan.  5,  1869. 

The  vacant  seats  in  the  senate  having  been  filled  by  a  special  election, 
that  body  met  in  January  with  a  quorum  of  members.  The  character  of 
both  branches  of  the  legislature  had  undergone  a  change  in  the  brief  interval 
between  Nov.  7,  1868,  and  Jan.  5,  1869.  Governor  Reed  was  recognized 
without  a  murmur.  It  was  as  if  nothing  had  happened.  The  house  of 
representatives,  which  so  lately  had  acted  as  the  grand  inquest  to  impeach, 
and  the  senate,  which  had  prepared  itself  as  a  tribunal  to  try  the  governor, 
were  quiescent.  The  senate  adopted  the  following  resolutions,  which  com 
pletely  ignored  the  existence  of  the  called  session  of  November : 

"  Hesolved)  That  the  senate  recognize  no  other  journal  of  its  proceedings 
for  this  session  than  the  journal  commencing  Tuesday,  Jan.  5,  1869 ;  and 
that  all  other  so-called  journals  be  expunged  from  its  records." 

In  the  house  of  representatives,  which,  without  inquiry  into  their  truth, 
had  been  so  swift  to  impeach  the  governor  on  the  charges  made  by  Jenkins, 
the  following  resolution  was  adopted  as  its  first  official  act  in  January  : 

"  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed  by  the  speaker  to 
wait  upon  His  Excellency,  Harrison  Reed,  and  notify  him  that  the  assembly 
is  in  session  and  ready  to  receive  any  communication  which  he  may  wish 
to  make."  On  the  second  day  of  this  session,  January  6th,  the  assembly 
adopted  a  resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  five  to  inquire 


52O  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

into  and  investigate  the  conduct,  acts  and  doings  of  the  governor,  and  to 
report  the  results  of  its  investigation.  Thus,  having  condemned  the  gov 
ernor  and  arraigned  him  at  the  bar  of  the  senate  as  a  criminal,  the  assembly, 
within  two  months  thereafter,  appointed  a  committee  to  investigate  the 
charges  and  report  the  facts. 

The  legislature  adopted  a  concurrent  resolution  on  the  yth  of  January, 
politely  informing  "  his  excellency"  that  the  two  houses  were  ready  to  pro 
ceed  to  business,  and  inviting  him  to  make  any  communication  he  might 
think  proper  on  the  state  of  public  aflairs.  Accordingly  the  governor  ad 
dressed  them  in  conciliatory  terms  upon  the  improved  tone  of  public  feeling. 
He  said  words  to  encourage  all  prospects  of  material  development.  The 
committee  which  had  been  appointed  to  investigate  the  conduct  of  the  gov 
ernor  made  its  report  on  the  26th  of  January.  The  assembly,  having  lis 
tened  to  the  reading  of  the  testimony,  declared,  by  a  vote  of  forty-three  yeas 
to  five  nays,  that  there  was  nothing  to  justify  an  impeachment.  This  was  a 
ridiculous  conclusion  of  the  portentous  proceedings  begun  on  November  6th. 

The  governor,  however,  had  managed  to  escape  only  one  impeachment. 
He  fell  into  another.  It  was  a  more  serious  one.  A  committee  appointed 
at  the  legislative  session  which  convened  on  Jan.  4,  1870,  reported  certain 
testimony.  It  showed  that  he  had  received  and  appropriated  to  his  own  use 
$5,000,  on  a  deposit  of  $100,000  of  state  bonds  with  Messrs.  Soulter  &  Co., 
of  New-York,  and  that  this  sum  was  part  of  a  bribe  of  $12,500  given  him  by 
George  W.  Swepson,  of  North  Carolina,  in  consideration  of  his  calling  a  spe 
cial  session  of  the  legislature  and  agreeing  to  exert  his  influence  in  favor  of  cer 
tain  railroad  legislation.  Comprised  in  the  testimony  was  a  letter  from  Swep 
son  to  Reed,  dated  Raleigh,  May  31 ,  1869.  It  contained  an  explicit,  but  dam 
aging  statement :  "  You  remember  when  in  New-York,  our  agreement  was 
this  :  You  were  to  call  the  legislature  together  and  use  your  influence  to  have 
our  bills  passed  as  drawn  by  us  ;  and  if  you  were  successful  in  this  you  were 
to  be  paid  $12,500  in  cash,  out  of  which  amount  was  to  be  deducted  the 
$7,500  you  have  heretofore  received,  leaving  a  balance  of  $5,000  to  be 
paid  at  an  early  day.  Should  our  bills  as  drawn  pass,  we  want  you  to  go 
to  New-York  and  sign  and  issue  to  us  the  state  bonds,  and  receive  the  bonds 
of  our  road  in  exchange  for  them." 

The  committee  also  reported  that  Reed  had  wrongfully  appropriated  the 
sum  of  $1,140  belonging  to  the  Internal  Improvement  fund;  also,  that  a 
sum  of  $6,948  belonging  to  the  state,  which  Reed  had  received  in  "United 
States  currency,"  he  had  paid  over  to  the  treasurer  in  "state  scrip,"  then 
at  a  depreciation  of  ten  per  cent,  below  par;  also,  that  a  sum  of  $22,500 
received  by  him  as  the  proceeds  of  $30,000  of  state  bonds,  sold  for  state 
purposes,  had  been  turned  over  by  him  to  the  treasurer  in  depreciated 
scrip,  and  that  in  the  purchase  of  rifles,  for  which  this  money  was  to  he 
used,  he  had  made  an  overcharge  of  from  $3.00  to  $3.50  each. 


FLORIDA  UNDER  CARPET-BAG  RULE.  521 

In  view  of  all  these  facts,  the  committee  reported  a  resolution  of  impeach 
ment  of  Governor  Reed,  for  "high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  malfeasance, 
and  incompetency  in  office."  Mr.  William  H.  White,  as  a  minority  of  one, 
presented  his  own  views.  These  were  to  the  effect  that,  while  the  conduct 
of  the  governor  had  been  in  some  instances  informal,  irregular,  and  indis 
creet,  particularly  in  connection  with  financial  matters,  these  irregularities 
were  palliated,  or  perhaps  excused,  by  a  lack  of  co-operation  and  accord  be 
tween  the  governor  and  a  portion  of  his  cabinet ;  and  he  offered  a  resolution 
declaring  that  in  view  of  the  explanations  offered,  and  of  attending  circum 
stances,  there  was  no  sufficient  evidence  to  warrant  the  impeachment.  The 
"explanations"  referred  to  by  Mr.  White  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  report 
of  the  committee's  proceedings.  The  "attending  circumstances"  of  the 
assembly  must  have  been  similar  to  those  which  befogged  the  intellect  and 
conscience  of  Governor  Reed,  for  the  minority  report,  in  the  face  of  the 
clearest  evidence,  which  was  not  rebutted  in  any  particular,  was  adopted  by 
yeas  27,  nays  22. 

The  effort  to  impeach  Governor  Reed  thus  failed.  Its  promoters  were 
members  of  the  Republican  party.  They  are  reported  to  have  expressed  the 
sentiment,  in  a  caucus  held  the  next  day,  4 '  to  harmonize  Republicans  and 
to  concentrate  Republican  effort,"  that  "  they  had  been  fairly  and  thoroughly 
whipped  "  ;  that  they  "  accepted  the  result  both  as  a  finality  and  as  directory 
of  the  wishes  of  the  party"  ;  that  they  had  "  misunderstood  the  wishes  of  the 
party  "  ;  and  they  pledged  themselves  to  sustain  Mr.  Reed's  administration. 
If  this  report  can  be  relied  upon,  these  penitent  impeachers  were  as  basi 
as  the  man  whom  they  charged  with  having  embezzled  the  public  money. 

Between  acts  of  embezzlement  and  acts  of  usurpation,  the  governor 
seemed  resolved  to  make  his  administration  memorable.  His  next  movement 
in  the  latter  line  was  the  "  appointment"  of  a  lieutenant-governor.  He  sent 
a  message  to  the  senate  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  January.  It  notified 
that  body  that  he  had  "appointed"  Edmund  C.  Weeks  lieutenant-gov 
ernor  in  place  of  William  H.  Gleason,  declared  ineligible  by  a  decision  of 
the  supreme  court,  on  the  ground  of  non-citizenship.  The  senate,  how 
ever,  repudiated  the  appointment.  It  ordered  the  sergeant-at-arms  to  arrest 
the  usurper  if  he  should  undertake  to  assume  the  chair.  Weeks,  however, 
deemed  "  discretion  the  better  part  of  valor."  He  did  nothing  to  provoke 
arrest.  Another  extraordinary  circumstance  in  which  the  governor  was  con 
cerned,  was  in  connection  with  a  bill  in  relation  to  agricultural  land  scrip. 
A  bill  of  similar  title  was  signed  by  the  proper  officers  of  both  houses,  and 
by  the  governor,  while  the  bill  which  had  really  been  passed  on  that  subject 
had  not  got  any  farther  in  its  legislative  progress  than  the  Committee  on 
Enrolled  Bills.  It  had  not  even  been  enrolled.  When  the  governor  pre 
sented  himself  at  Washington  to  realize  the  scrip  for  which  the  bill  pro 
vided,  he  learned  that  this  little  act  of  legislative  legerdemain  had  been 


522  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

made  known  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  that  the  device  would  not 
work. 

In  these  matters  Governor  Reed  was  no  worse,  and  no  better,  than  the 
legislators  and  politicians  with  whom  he  co-operated.  In  an  election  held 
on  the  8th  of  November,  1870,  for  members  of  the  legislature,  lieutenant-gov 
ernor,  and  members  of  Congress,  the  Republican  candidates  were  "counted 
in"  by  the  returning  board.  It  was  done  by  the  rejection  of  votes  in  nine 
Democratic  counties,  on  the  pretense  of  "  glaring  informalities,  and  non-com 
pliance  with  the  law."  The  matter  was  brought  before  the  supreme  court 
of  the  state.  That  tribunal  issued  a  writ  commanding  the  returning  board 
to  count  the  rejected  votes.  But  the  writ  was  not  obeyed.  The  rejected 
votes  were  not  counted.  The  result  of  the  election,  therefore,  was,  that  in 
the  senate  there  were  eleven  Republicans  and  ten  Democrats ;  and  in  the 
assembly,  twenty-three  Republicans  and  twenty  Democrats  ;  that  Josiah  T. 
Wales,  a  colored  man,  was  the  Representative  in  Congress,  and  S.  T.  Day 
the  lieutenant-governor.  The  rejection  of  the  votes  in  the  nine  counties  was 
attributed  by  leading  Democrats  to  the  influence  of  the  "  Osborn  Ring." 
This  ring  derived  its  name  from  Thomas  W.  Osborn,  United  States  Senator 
from  Florida.  The  opinion  which  Reed  and  Osborn  entertained  of  each 
other  may  be  gathered  from  a  speech  made  by  the  former  at  Tallahassee,  in 
1870,  pending  his  impeachment.  In  it  he  says : 

"  And  how  had  I  offended  Senator  Osborn?  I  had  refused  to  make  ap 
pointments  at  his  dictation  .  .  .  and  I  had  blocked  one  of  his  schemes 
for  plunder.  He  proposed  to  me  that  we  should  obtain  from  the  United 
States  Government  the  grant  of  a  large  tract  of  land  at  Pensacola  for  the  state, 
and  that  I  should  then  influence  the  surveyor-general  that  this  land  might 
be  sold  at  a  mere  nominal  price  to  Senator  Osborn.  I  refused  to  counte 
nance  this  scheme ;  and  so  I  must  be  removed,  that  a  more  pliant  tool 
might  take  my  place,  and  the  ring  might  plunder  to  its  heart's  content." 

A  third  attempt  to  remove  Governor  Reed  by  impeachment  was  made  in 
February,  1872.  The  assembly  presented  articles  of  impeachment,  and 
the  senate  resolved  itself  into  a  court  to  try  them.  Fourteen  charges  were 
brought  against  him,  including  those  which  had  been  the  subject  of  the 
previous  investigation.  The  new  charges  were  of  the  same  general  charac 
ter —  bribery,  appropriation  of  state  money  to  his  own  use,  and  fraudulent 
conspiracy  with  railroad  managers  and  others  to  cheat  and  rob  the  state  in 
connection  with  the  issue  of  state  bonds.  Governor  Reed  announced  his 
readiness  to  meet  the  charges ;  but  the  impeachment  managers  applied  for 
a  continuation  of  the  trial,  to  give  them  time  to  collect  evidence  and  bring 
witnesses  from  distant  states.  This  application  being  denied,  and  the  man 
agers  being  unprepared  to  proceed  with  the  trial,  the  court  and  legislature 
adjourned. 

Immediately  on  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature,  Governor  Reed 
claimed  the  right  to  resume  his  executive  functions,  which  (as  the  constitu- 


STATE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  LEGISLATION.  523 

tion  required)  he  had  had  to  yield  to  Lieutenant-Governor  Day,  on  being 
impeached.  But  Day  showed  no  disposition  to  surrender  them.  Reed, 
taking  advantage  of  Day's  temporary  absence  from  the  capital,  stepped  into 
the  executive  office  at  Tallahassee,  got  possession  of  the  great  seal  of  the 
state,  and  issued  a  proclamation  announcing  his  resumption  of  the  executive 
office.  He  did  this  on  the  ground  that  the  abandonment  of  the  impeach 
ment  proceedings  was  equivalent  to  his  discharge  from  constructive  arrest. 
This  was  on  the  8th  of  April,  1872.  On  the  fifteenth,  Lieutenant-Gov 
ernor  Day  issued  a  counter-proclamation.  It  asserted  his  right  to  the  office 
of  governor.  It  denounced  Reed  as  a  usurper,  and  his  proceedings  as  rebel 
lious.  Reed  submitted  the  question  to  the  supreme  court  of  the  state. 
The  majority  of  the  judges  decided  adversely  to  his  claim.  They  held  that 
his  impeachment  was  still  pending  before  the  senate ;  and  that,  until  final 
action  by  that  tribunal,  he  was,  within  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  sus 
pended. 

Day  was  equally  unfortunate  in  his  movement.  When  Reed  appealed  to 
the  court,  Day,  as  acting  governor,  summoned  the  legislature  in  extraor 
dinary  session.  The  impeachment  proceedings  were  thus  resumed  before 
the  managers  were  ready.  The  consequence  was  an  immediate  acquittal 
of  Reed,  and  his  restoration  to  office,  so  that  each  in  turn  was  "hoist  by  his 
own  petard."  Each  was  indebted  to  the  other  for  the  degree  of  success 
achieved.  The  lieutenant-governor  might  have  held  the  office  of  governor 
for  months  longer — possibly  through  the  term — if  he  had  not  precipitated 
the  impeachment  trial  by  calling  'the  legislature  together  in  extraordinary 
session.  This  was  the  presidential  year.  General  Grant  was  the  Republi 
can  candidate.  The  Republicans  carried  the  state  by  larger  majorities  than 
they  had  two  years  before.  The  Grant  electors  received  17,763  votes; 
the  Greeley  electors  only  15,427;  The  Republican  candidate  for  governor, 
Mr.  Hart,  received  17,603  votes,  and  the  Democratic  candidate,  Mr.  Blox- 
ham,  16,004.  The  Republican  candidates  for  Congress  were  elected  by 
about  the  same  majorities.  The  state  senate  consisted  of  thirteen  Republi 
cans  and  eleven  Democrats,  and  the  assembly  of  twenty-eight  Republicans 
and  twenty-four  Democrats — the  Republicans  thus  having  a  majority  of  six 
on  joint  ballot. 

The  new  legislature  met  on  the  i7th  of  January,  1873.  It  proceeded  to 
the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator  in  place  of  Mr.  Osborn.  The  choice 
fell  on  Simon  B.  Conover.  He  was  speaker  of  the  assembly,  and  late  state 
treasurer.  He  was  a  native  of  New  Jersey,  of  a  most  approved  family 
from  Monmouth  County. 

The  measure  of  this  session  bearing  on  the  question  of  reconstruction 
was  an  act  "to  protect  the  citizens  of  Florida  in  their  civil  rights."  It 
provided  that  no  person  should  be  excluded,  by  reason  of  race,  color,  or 
previous  condition  of  servitude,  from  hotels,  theatres,  or  other  places  of 
amusement,  from  traveling  in  public  conveyances,  from  cemeteries,  or  from 


524  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

public  schools.  All  such  attempts  to  enforce  social  intercourse  between 
classes  that  have  no  affinities  have  been  a  failure,  although  backed  by  laws 
of  Congress  and  of  "reconstructed"  states.  They  are  now  practically 
abandoned  because  of  the  righteous  adverse  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

The  Republicans  elected  the  two  congressmen  in  1874.  The  legislative 
election  was  in  favor  of  the  Democrats.  They  had  a  majority  of  four  on 
joint  ballot.  The  Democratic  party  was  thus  enabled  to  take  control  of 
public  affairs.  They  elected  a  Democrat,  Charles  W.  Jones,  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  in  place  of  Gilbert,  Republican.  Senator  Jones  is  of  Irish 
descent,  of  stalwart  form,  gentle  manners,  accomplished  talent,  rare  genius 
for  law  and  comprehension  of  fact  and  philosophy.  He  was  one  of  the 
first  to  aid  in  lifting  the  South  out  of  its  quagmire. 

Governor  Hart  died  in  March,  1874,  and  was  succeeded  by  the  lieuten 
ant-governor,  M.  L.  Stearns. 

The  financial  condition  of  Florida,  in  1872,  is  thus  stated  in  a  congres 
sional  report  of  that  period  : 

Debts  and  old  railroad  liabilities, $2,556,072 

Increase  since    1868,     ........  1,032,215 

Contingent  liabilities  for  railroads  (secured) ,  4,000,000 

Prospective  contingent  liabilities  (to  be  secured) ,            .         .  10,000,000 


$17,588,287 

The  four-million-dollar  item  represents  state  bonds  bearing  interest  at 
eight  per  centum.  They  were  issued  to  the  Jacksonville,  Pensacola  and 
Mobile  Railroad  Company  in  exchange  for  first  mortgage  bonds  of  the  com 
pany  to  the  same  amount.  Their  issue  furnished  one  of  those  splendid  op 
portunities  for  robbing  the  state  and  for  enriching  their  manipulators  that 
were  so  much  in  vogue  about  the  same  period  in  nearly  all  the  "  recon 
structed"  states.  It  was  in  connection  with  them  that  some  of  the  charges 
of  fraud  were  made  against  Governor  Reed  in  the  impeachment  proceedings. 
In  his  message  of  Jan.  4,  1872,  Governor  Reed  referred  to  these  same  bonds 
as  having  been  entrusted  by  the  company  ' '  to  one  of  the  firms  of  swindlers 
who  abound  in  New- York,  who  by  fraud  and  villainy  have  diverted  much  of 
the  proceeds."  He  had,  however,  placed  the  whole  four  thousand  bonds, 
which  nominally  represented  $1,000  each,  or  $4,000,000  in  the  aggregate,  in 
the  hands  of  his  particeps,  M.  S.  Littlefield.  This  notorious  sharper  had 
sold  them  to  a  London  broker  at  the  rate  of  £100,  or  $500  each  ;  —  so  that, 
as  they  bore  eight  per  cent,  interest,  the  people  of  Florida  were  thus  bound 
to  pay  for  the  money  which  was  received  on  these  bonds,  and  which  was 
largely  diverted  from  its  legitimate  purpose,  interest  at  the  rate  of  sixteen 
per  centum.  The  experience  of  Florida  in  this  respect  was  not  different 
from  that  of  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  and  other  "reconstructed"  states. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 


RECONSTRUCTION  IN  THE  FOURTH  MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

MISSISSIPPI  —  REGISTRATION  —  THE    DEMOCRATS     ALLOW    THE     ELECTION     FOR 
CONVENTION  TO  GO  BY  DEFAULT  —  APPREHENSIONS  OF  A  NEGRO  OUTBREAK 

—  COURT-MARTIALING  OF    A    NEWSPAPER  EDITOR  —  THE    CONSTITUTIONAL 
CONVENTION  —  LIBERAL    COMPENSATION    TO  DELEGATES  AND  OFFICERS  — 
GENERAL  AMES  APPOINTED  PROVISIONAL  GOVERNOR,  AND  GOVERNOR  HUM 
PHREYS    OUSTED    AT   THE  POINT    OF   THE    BAYONET  —  THE    CONSTITUTION 
DEFEATED  —  EX-SENATOR  BROWN'S  EXPLANATION  OF  THE  VOTE  — MODERA 
TION  IN    POLITICS— OBNOXIOUS     FEATURES   OF   THE  CONSTITUTION  ELIMI 
NATED—THE  CONSTITUTION  RATIFIED  —  CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  PRESI 
DENT    GRANT    AND  JUDGE  DENT  —  THE  FALL    ELECTION    OF    1869  — JAMES    L. 
ALCORN  CHOSEN  GOVERNOR  — HE  DECLINES  THE  "PROVISIONAL"  APPOINT 
MENT—ELECTIONS  TO  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE— A  COLORED  SENATOR 

—  ADMISSION  OF  MISSISSIPPI  TO  THE  UNION  —  MEETING  OF  THE  LEGISLA 
TURE—GOVERNOR    ALCORN'S    INAUGURAL  — A    MURDER    CASE  — THE    NEW 
CONSTITUTION  —  THE   ELECTORS     OF   1871  —  CENSUS  AND  TAXATION  —  DEMO 
CRATIC  VICTORY  IN  1875  -ARKANSAS  —  HIGH-HANDED  MILITARY  INTERFER 
ENCE  WITH  STATE  OFFICIALS  -THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION  —  ELEC 
TION  FRAUDS  —  CHARGES  OF  FRAUD  ON  ONE  SIDE,  AND  OF  INTIMIDATION  ON 
THE  OTHER  — MILITARY  RULE  TERMINATED,  AND  THE  STATE  RESTORED  TO 
THE  UNION  — FUNDING  THE  PUBLIC  DEBT  — THE  HOLFORD  BONDS— HOSTILITY 
BETWEEN     GOVERNOR     CLAYTON     AND    LIEUT.-GOV.  JOHNSON  —  THE  FALL 
ELECTION  OF  1872  — MORE  WHOLESALE  FRAUDS  — THE  BAXTER-BROOKS   CON 
FLICT—ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  1874— THE  PARTIES  AND  THEIR 
LEADERS     EXCHANGING     POSITIONS  — PRESIDENT     GRANT     CHANGES    WITH 
THEM  —  REPORT    OF  THE     POLAND     INVESTIGATING     COMMITTEE  —  STATE 
FINANCES. 

GENERAL  E.  O.  C.  Ord  was  appointed  commander  of  the  Fourth 
military  district.       It  consisted  of  the  states  of  Mississippi  and 
Arkansas.     His  headquarters    were  at  Vicksburg.     He  entered 
on  his  duties  on  the  twenty-sixth  of  March,  1867.     In  a  general 
order,  dated  April  15,  he  stated  that  elections  to  fill  vacancies  in  state  offices 
would  not  take  place  until  a  registration  of  voters  had  been  made,  and  that 
in  the  meantime  he  would  fill  such  vacancies  by  appointment.     He  advised 
the  freedmen  that  their  most  important  duty  was  to  labor  for  the  support  of 
themselves  and  their  families,  and  not  to  neglect  that  duty  for  politics. 


526  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  result  of  the  registration  in  Mississippi  showed  that  there  were  46,636 
white  registered  voters,  and  60,167  colored  ones.  An  election  was  then  held, 
for  and  against  a  state  convention,  and  for  delegates  thereto.  The  whites 
complained  that  the  selection  of  delegates  was  unfairly  made,  so  as  to 
give  a  large  preponderance  to  the  negroes.  They  were  for  a  time  divided 
in  opinion  as  to  the  utility  of  making  any  opposition  to  the  Republicans. 
They  therefore  allowed  the  election  to  go  practically  by  default.  There 
were  only  6,277  votes,  out  of  a  total  of  76,076,  cast  against  a  convention. 

In  December,  1867,  the  provisional  governor,  Benjamin  G.  Humphreys, 
found  it  necessary  to  call  upon  General  Ord  for  assistance  in  preventing  a 
violent  outbreak  of  the  blacks.  The  blacks  had  been  led  by  demagogues  to 
expect  that  lands  would  be  confiscated  and  distributed  among  them.  He 
also  issued  a  proclamation  against  threatened  combinations  and  conspiracies 
among  the  blacks  to  seize  lands  and  establish  farms.  General  Ord  gave 
orders  for  the  arrest  of  all  persons  engaged  in  such  unlawful  enterprises,  and 
of  all  white  men  who  should  advise  negroes  to  unlawful  acts.  These  vigor 
ous  measures  had  the  desired  effect.  The  reckless  schemes  were  abandoned. 

A  disturber  of  the  peace  among  the  whites  was  W.  H.  McCardle.  He 
was  the  editor  of  a  .Vicksburg  newspaper.  He  was  arrested  and  court-mar 
tialed  on  charges  of  publishing  articles  intended  to  incite  the  people  to  a 
breach  of  the  peace,  and  to  impede  reconstruction.  Judge  Hill,  of  the 
United  States  District  Court,  issued  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  behalf  of 
McCardle.  To  this  General  Ord  made  return,  setting  forth  the  facts ;  and 
that  the  prisoner  was  held  by  the  authority  of  the  acts  of  Congress  known  as 
the  Reconstruction  acts.  Judge  Hill  ruled  that  those  acts  were  valid  and 
constitutional.  An  appeal  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  That  court  dismissed  the  appeal  for  want  of  jurisdiction. 

The  constitutional  convention  met  in  Jackson  on  the  7tn  of  Jubr>  1868. 
It  continued  in  session  until  the  i8th  of  May.  It  contained  a  large  Republi 
can  majority.  B.  B.  Eggleston  was  elected  president.  He  was  an  Ohio 
man.  The  delegates  showed  a  liberal  appreciation  of  their  services  by  voting 
themselves  a  compensation  of  $10  a  day;  $20  a  day  to  the  president;  $15 
each  to  the  secretary  and  reporter  ;  $10  to  the  sergeant-at-arms,  and  $2. 50  to 
the  pages.  There  was  considerable  opposition  to  this  scale  of  compensation, 
but  the  dissatisfied  were  regarded  as  almost  guilty  of  treason,  and  as  deserv 
ing  of  expulsion.  A  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a  memorial  to 
Congress,  asking  for  power  to  remove  the  state  officials  appointed  or  elected 
under  the  provisional  government  and  to  appoint  others  in  their  stead.  A 
protest  against  this  memorial,  repelling  the  charge  that  the  provisional  gov 
ernment  was  in  the  hands  of  the  rebels,  and  that  the  lives  and  property  of 
loyal  men  were  insecure,  was  signed  by  fifteen  members,  but  it  was  not 
allowed  to  be  entered  on  the  journal.  The  convention,  by  a  vote  of  fifty  to 
nineteen,  ordered  the  protest  to  be  "wrapped  in  brown  paper  and  returned 
to  its  author." 


MISSISSIPPI  UNDER  MILITARY  RULE.  527 

General  Ord  was,  on  June  4,  1868,  succeeded  in  the  command  of  the 
Fourth  military  district  by  Gen.  Irwin  McDowell.  This  officer,  on  the 
fifteenth  of  the  same  month,  issued  a  general  order  removing  Governor  Hum 
phreys,  and  appointing  Maj.-Gen.  Adelbert  Ames  provisional  governor 
in  his  place.  At  the  same  time,  Capt.  Jasper  Myers  was  appointed  attor 
ney-general  of  the  state,  instead  of  Charles  E.  Hooker,  removed.  General 
Ames  notified  Governor  Humphreys  of  the  change  ordered,  and  requested  to 
be  informed  when  it  would  be  convenient  to  make  the  necessary  arrangements. 
Governor  Humphreys  replied  that  he  regarded  the  general  order  as  a 
**  usurpation  of  the  civil  government  of  Mississippi,  unwarranted  by,  and  in 
violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  He  stated  that  he  had  tele 
graphed  to  the  President,  and  was  authorized  to  say  that  the  President  dis 
approved  the  order.  He,  therefore,  refused  to  vacate  the  office.  In  this 
case,  however,  the  power  of  the  President,  though  "Commander-in-chief  of 
the  Army  and  Navy,"  was  subordinate  to  that  of  his  inferior  officer.  The 
commander  of  the  Fourth  military  district  was  backed  by  Congress.  Gov 
ernor  Humphreys  was  ousted  from  his  office  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet. 
General  Ames,  of  Maine,  took  possession  of  the  governor's  house,  and  of  all 
the  public  buildings  and  archives. 

The  white  population  of  Mississippi  was,  almost  universally,  opposed  to 
the  reconstruction  measures.  Although  in  a  voting  minority,  the  whites  were 
able  to  defeat  the  ratification  of  the  constitution  which  was  the  work  of  the 
convention.  The  obnoxious  clauses  of  that  instrument  were  those  relating  to 
suffrage  and  eligibility  to  office.  In  general  terms  suffrage  was  declared  to  be 
universal ;  but  persons  offering  to  register  were  required  to  swear  that  they 
were  not  disfranchised  by  any  of  the  Reconstruction  acts.  No  one  who  was 
not  a  qualified  elector  was  eligible  to  any  public  office.  The  same  disquali 
fications  were  extended  to  such  members  of  the  legislature  as  had  voted  for 
the  call  of  the  convention  that  passed  the  ordinance  of  secession  ;  to  all  who 
had  voted  for,  or  signed,  such  ordinance  ;  and  to  all  who  had  aided  or  coun 
tenanced  the  rebellion  —  unless  they  had  afterwards  aided  reconstruction  by 
voting  for  the  constitutional  convention,  and  had,  in  good  faith,  advocated  its 
acts.  Private  soldiers  of  the  Confederate  army  were,  however,  exempted 
from  this  exclusion  from  office. 

This  clumsy  and  contradictory  proscription  went  even  beyond  the  restric 
tions  of  the  Reconstruction  acts.  A  quiet  citizen  who  had  managed  to  keep 
out  of  the  fight,  but  had  given  aid,  comfort,  countenance,  or  counsel  to  the 
rebellion,  was  placed  in  a  worse  situation  than  the  man  who  had  fought  in 
the  ranks.  And  even  the  worst  cases  of  treason  and  rebellion  were  condoned 
by  voting  for  the  convention  and  continuously  supporting  the  reconstruction 
measures.  It  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  the  white  people  in  Mississippi 
united  in  an  effort  to  defeat  such  a  constitution.  The  intelligent  and  re 
spectable  colored  men  sympathized  with  them. 


528  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  total  vote  on  ratification  was  120,091,  of  which  56,231  were  for  the 
constitution,  and  63,860  against  it.  This  showed  an  opposition  majority  of 
7,629.  Benjamin  G.  Humphreys,  the  Democratic  candidate  for  governor, 
was  elected.  He  received  63,321  votes,  against  55,250  for  the  Republican 
candidate,  B.  B.  Eggleston.  Four  of  the  five  congressmen  elected  at  the 
same  time  were  Democrats.  The  Democrats  had  a  small  majority  in  the 
legislature. 

Ex-United  States  Senator  Albert  G.  Brown  appeared  before  the  congres 
sional  reconstruction  committee  as  a  representative  of  the  Democratic  party. 
He  is  the  statesman  referred  to  in  our  early  chapters.  He  testified  that  pro 
found  quiet  prevailed  in  all  parts  of  Mississippi ;  that  there  was  not  a  state  in 
the  Union  where  the  law  was  administered  more  impartially,  or  where  the 
civil  courts  had  a  higher  regard  for  the  rights  of  men  of  all  parties  and  of  all 
colors.  He  stated  that  the  people  were  willing  to  submit  to  the  Reconstruc 
tion  acts  of  Congress,  if  those  acts  were  fairly  carried  out.  The  proposed 
constitution  had  been  defeated,  he  said,  not  by  fraud  and  intimidation,  as 
had  been  alleged,  but  distinctly  because  it  was  more  vindictive  in  its  spirit 
than  the  people,  white  or  black,  would  tolerate.  It  was  more  prescrip 
tive  than  the  acts  of  Congress  required.  He  said  that  the  Republican  candi 
dates  were  defeated  because  they  stood  as  the  representatives  of  the  tone  of 
the  constitution,  and  not  because  they  were  trying  to  reflect  the  will  of  Con 
gress.  He  declared  that  if  Congress  would  take  up  the  rejected  constitution 
of  1868,  and  so  amend  it  as  to  make  it  conform  to  the  requirements  of  the 
fourteenth  article  of  the  Reconstruction  acts,  the  people  would  accept  it  with 
unparalleled  unanimity.  They  would  not,  however,  he  said,  willingly  accept 
as  officers  the  men  who  had  been  rejected  with  the  constitution,  because  those 
men  stood  as  the  exponents  of  that  constitution  and  were  pledged  to  carry 
out  all  its  vindictive  and  prescriptive  features. 

A  joint  resolution  was  passed  by  Congress  early  in  March,  1869.  It  de 
clared  that  the  offices  held  in  Virginia,  Texas,  and  Mississippi  by  persons 
who  could  not  take  the  test  oath  prescribed  by  the  act  of  July  2,  1862,  should 
be  vacated.  It  declared  also  that  the  commanders  of  the  military  districts 
embracing  those  states  should  fill  such  offices  by  the  appointment  of  persons 
who  could  take  the  test  oath.  An  exception  was  made  in  favor  of  those  whose 
disabilities  had  been  removed.  This  joint  resolution  was  carried  into  effect 
in  Mississippi  by  a  general  order  of  General  Ames.  It  was  dated  March 
23d.  Another  general  order  was  issued  requiring  that  men  of  color  should 
be  received  by  the  courts  as  competent  jurors. 

Considering  the  ardent  temperament  of  the  Mississippi  character  and  the 
profoundly  important  questions  at  issue,  the  politics  of  the  state  took  a  singu 
lar  turn.  Moderation  became  the  order  of  the  day.  Eggleston  and  his  asso 
ciates,  who  had  framed  the  constitution  of  May,  1868, 'and  who  had  made  it 
so  prescriptive  that  it  was  disapproved  by  General  Grant  and  a  majority  of 


RIVAL  REPUBLICAN  PARTIES. 


529 


Congress,  were  thrown  overboard  by  the  Republican  party  ;  while  the  Dem 
ocratic  party,  which  had  urged  affairs  to  the  opposite  extreme,  had  the  good 
sense  to  stand  aside  in  favor  of  the  "National  Union  Republican  Party." 
President  Grant,  under  the  authority  of  Congress,  issued  a  proclamation 
ordering  a  new  election  on  the  question  of  ratification  of  the  constitution, 
in  which  the  sections  containing  the  obnoxious  features  that  had  been  pointed 
out  were  submitted  for  a  separate  vote.  The  result  was  that  all  these  were 
rejected  by  large  majorities.  The  constitution  itself,  thus  amended  by  exec 
utive  pruning,  was  ratified.  It  was  ratified  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote. 
There  were  only  954  votes  against  ratification,  to  105,223  in  its  favor. 

The  radical  Republicans,  probably  under  inspiration  from  Washington, 
put  in  nomination  a  relatively  conservative  ticket  for  state  officers.  James  L. 
Alcorn,  a  studious  economist  and  cotton  raiser  of  fair  and  conservative  views, 
was  at  its  head  for  governor.  Their  platform  also  was  denuded  of  all  its 
most  offensive  features.  It  differed  very  little  in  tone  from  that  of  the 
National  Union  Republicans.  It  pledged  fidelity  to  the  Union  and  to  the 
Republican  party.  It  favored  a  just  and  economical  administration  of  the 
state  and  national  governments,  freedom  of  speech  and  of  elections,  free 
schools,  and  reformation  of  the  system  of  taxation.  It  declared  that  all  men, 
without  regard  to  race,  stood  as  equals  before  the  law.  The  platform 
declared  in  favor  of  a  removal  of  political  disabilities  as  soon  as  the  dawning 
spirit  of  toleration  should  warrant  Congress  in  declaring  them  at  an  end.  It 
recommended  the  ratification  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment. 

The  National  Union  Republican  party  adopted  a  platform  quite  as 
liberal  as  that  of  the  radical  Republicans.  It  expressed  the  thanks  of  the 
party  to  the  President  and  Congress  for  rejecting  the  scheme  of  Eggleston 
and  others  to  secure  the  acceptance  of  the  constitution  after  it  had  been  re 
jected  by  the  people.  It  declared  in  favor  of  universal  suffrage  and  of  free 
schools  for  all.  This  party  nominated  as  its  candidate  for  governor,  Judge 
Lewis  Dent.  He  was  a  brother-in-law  of  President  Grant.  He  doubtless  ex 
pected  to  receive  the  support  of  General  Grant  and  his  administration.  In 
this,  however,  he  was  mistaken.  General  Grant  declared  in  an  emphatic 
letter  his  purpose  to  sustain  the  candidates  of  the  other  party.  This  letter, 
which  was  addressed  to  his  brother-in-law,  was  as  follows : 

"  LONG  BRANCH,  August  ist,    1869. 

"DEAR  JUDGE  :  I  am  so  thoroughly  satisfied  in  my  own  mind  that  the 
success  of  the  so-called  conservative  party  in  Mississippi  would  result  in  the 
defeat  of  what  I  believe  to  be  for  the  best  interest  of  the  state  and  country, 
that  I  have  determined  to  say  so  to  you  (in  writing  of  course) .  I  know, 
or  believe  that  your  intentions  are  good  in  accepting  the  nomination  from 
the  conservative  party.  I  would  regret  to  see  you  run  for  an  office  and  be 
defeated  by  my  act ;  but,  as  matters  now  look,  I  must  throw  the  weight  of 


530  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

my  influence  in  favor  of  the  party  opposed  to  you.  I  earnestly  hope  that  be 
fore  the  election  there  will  be  such  concessions  on  either  side  in  Mississippi 
as  to  unite  all  true  supporters  in  the  state  of  reconstruction  and  of  the  ad 
ministration  together  in  support  of  one  ticket." 

This  letter  of  President  Grant  was  volunteered  on  his  part  in  order  to 
prevent  a  misapprehension  of  his  wishes.  It  gave  tone  to  public  feeling. 

The  reply  of  Judge  Dent  to  the  letter  of  the  President  was  manly  and 
vigorous.  It  deserves  a  place  in  this  history.  He  said : 

"Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a  people  having  the  free  choice  of  their 
representatives  would  elect  for  their  rulers  a  class  of  politicians  whose  aggres 
sive  and  hostile  conduct  hitherto  has  rendered  them  peculiarly  obnoxious  and 
disagreeable  ? 

"  And  to  this  class  of  men,  whom  you  foiled  in  their  attempt  to  force  upon, 
the  people  of  Mississippi  the  odious  constitution  rejected  at  the  ballot-box, 
you  now  give  the  hand  of  fellowship  and  support ;  and  spurn  from  you  that 
other  class  who,  accepting  the  invitation  of  the  Republican  party  in  good 
faith,  came  en  masse  in  Virginia  and  Tennessee,  as  they  will  come  in  Mis 
sissippi  and  Texas,  to  stand  upon  its  platform  and  advocate  its  principles." 

The  result  of  the  election  showed  that  General  Grant's  letter  had  the 
desired  effect.  There  were  114,283  votes  cast  for  the  office  of  governor,  of 
which  Mr.  Alcorn  received  76,186  and  Judge  Dent  38,097.  The  entire 
delegation  to  Congress  chosen  on  the  same  day  was  composed  of  Republi 
cans.  That  party  also  elected  three-fourths  of  the  legislature.  A  military 
order  which  announced  the  result  of  the  election  directed  the  legislature  to 
meet  at  Jackson  on  the  nth  of  January,  1870.  Another  general  order 
appointed  Mr.  Alcorn  provisional  governor;  and  the  other  gentlemen 
elected  on  the  ticket  with  him  were  provisionally  appointed  to  the 
places  for  which  they  were  chosen  by  the  people.  These  provisional  ap 
pointments  were  to  continue  until  Congress  should  decide  on  the  validity  of 
the  constitution  and  the  elections  under  it.  Mr.  Alcorn,  for  reasons  which 
do  honor  to  his  head  and  heart,  declined  this  appointment.  "  Coming  from 
military  authority  and  subject  for  its  support  to  the  military  power,"  he  said, 
"  the  fitness  of  things  appears  to  me  to  forbid  my  acceptance  of  it,  while  I 
hold  in  immediate  prospect  the  position  of  civil  governor  by  that  sanction 
most  acceptable  to  my  instincts  as  an  American  citizen,  that  of  popular 
choice." 

The  legislature  which  met  on  January  nth,  proceeded  to  elect  three 
United  States  Senators,  two  to  fill  unexpired  terms  and  one  for  the  regular 
term  commencing  March  4,  1871.  Mr.  Alcorn,  the  governor  elected,  was 
chosen  Senator  for  the  long  term.  General  Ames  was  elected  for  the  longer 
of  the  two  unexpired  terms.  A  colored  man  named  Revels  was  assigned  to 
the  remaining  short  term  which  would  expire  March  4,  1871.  Mr.  Alcorn 
received  a  unanimous  vote  in  the  state  senate  and  a  vote  of  ninety-one  to  two 


THE  FIRST  COLORED  SENATOR.  531 

in  the  other  house.  The  votes  for  the  other  two  Senators  were  also  large. 
The  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  amendments  to  the  United  States  Constitution 
were  adopted  by  large  majorities. 

The  act  for  the  admission  of  Mississippi  to  representation  in  Congress, 
prescribing  the  same  conditions  as  those  laid  down  in  the  case  of  Virginia, 
was  adopted,  after  discussion,  on  the  iyth  of  February,  1870,  and  approved 
on  the  twenty-third  of  the  same  month.  There  was  a  proposition  to  impose 
other  and  harder  conditions,  but  it  is  probable  that  the  presence  of  a  man  of 
African  descent  with  a  certificate  of  election  as  a  United  States  Senator 
turned  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  bill.  The  state  legislature,  which  had  ad 
journed,  re-assembled  on  the  8th  of  March.  On  the  tenth  of  the  same 
month,  Governor  Alcorn  was  inaugurated.  In  his  inaugural  he  said  : 

u  The  Union  has  brought  us  back,  pardoned  children,  into  its  bosom.  It 
bids  us  go  forward  this  day  to  the  reconstruction  of  a  government  on  the 
ruins  left  by  our  own  madness.  Restored  to  our  lost  place  in  the  sisterhood 
of  states  by  the  grace  of  the  Nation,  that  grace  has  brought  us  back  an  equal 
among  sovereigns.  The  Northern  Democracy  have  overthrown  the  South 
ern  oligarchy.  This  is  the  measure  of  the  fact  accomplished  by  the  action 
of  the  United  States.  Entering  on  our  duty  in  acceptance  of  that  result,  we 
must  go  forward  to  make  the  overthrow  of  the  old  system  that  had  reigned 
amongst  us  a  practical  reality,  by  insuring  all  the  blessings  of  free  govern 
ment  for  the  masses  of  the  people." 

Governor  Alcorn's  idea  of  state  sovereignty  might  be  accepted  practically 
by  the  older  champions  of  consolidation.  Holding  that  the  states  were  sov 
ereign  before  the  rebellion  and  sovereign  after  their  overthrow  and  recon 
struction  under  acts  of  Congress  which  subjected  the  people  to  military  rule, 
he  yet  rejoices  at  their  overthrow,  and  bids  the  people  go  forward  in  build 
ing  new  institutions  of  freedom  and  progress  on  the  ruins  of  slavery ! 

A  local  event  of  startling  import  occurs  at  Jackson.  Jackson  is  the 
seat  of  government.  This  is  the  murder,  or  at  least  the  killing  of  Lieut.- 
Col.  Joseph  Crane.  He  is  the  provisional  mayor  of  the  town.  He  is  killed 
by  Edward  M.  Yerger,  an  ex-Confederate  colonel.  In  Yerger's  absence  from 
home,  a  seizure  of  a  piano  has  been  made  at  his  house,  under  a  warrant  of 
distress  issued  by  the  mayor  to  satisfy  a  tax  levy,  which  Yerger  disputes. 
On  his  return,  he  has  a  street  altercation  with  Crane.  In  this  he  stabs  Crane 
to  death  with  a  bowie-knife.  A  military  commission  is  ordered  to  try  Yer 
ger,  but  his  counsel  protests  against  such  a  form  of  trial.  The  question  is 
brought  by  habeas  corpus  before  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  that 
district,  but  this  court  decides  in  favor  of  the  military  authorities.  The  mat 
ter  is  carried  by  certiorari  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  but 
before  a  decision  is  reached  the  state  is  "reconstructed."  All  claim  of  military 
authority  to  try  the  case  ends.  When  Yerger  comes  to  be  tried  before  a  jury 
he  is  acquitted.  There'*is  no  precedent  for  hanging  a  man  in  that  state  for 
killing  his  adversary  on  the  street. 


532  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Under  the  new  constitution,  the  judges  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  gov 
ernor,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate.  Formerly  their 
offices  had  been  elective.  The  change,  though  a  wise  one,  indicated  distrust 
of  the  new  voters.  The  new  constitution  also  provided  for  the  establish 
ment  of  a  system  of  common  schools.  Although  nothing  was  said  in  it  about 
separate  schools  for  the  two  races,  that  plan  was  probably  adopted  from  the 
beginning.  Mixed  schools  in  the  South  are  utterly  impracticable.  Their  ad 
vocates  must  be  fanatical  devotees  of  social  equality,  rather  than  friends  of 
education.  Among  the  provisions  made  for  the  public  schools  was  a  poll- 
tax  of  two  dollars. 

At  the  election  of  November,  1871,  the  Democrats  made  considerable 
gains,  but  not  enough  to  overcome  the  immense  Republican  majorities.  The 
senate  was  made  up  of  twenty-two  Republicans  and  fourteen  Democrats  ;  the 
house  of  sixty -two  Republicans,  forty-six  Democrats,  and  three  Independents. 

The  census  of  1870  showed  a  population  in  Mississippi  of  827,992  of  all 
races  and  ages,  and  an  assessed  valuation  of  property  amounting  to  $177,000, - 
ooo.  The  state  and  county  taxes  aggregated  the  enormous  sum  of  $3,736,- 
432.  This  was  at  the  rate  of  $4.52  for  each  person,  or  something  over  $20 
per  head  of  the  adult  male  population.  Otherwise  expressed,  the  rate  was 
$47.37  for  every  thousand  dollars'  worth  of  property  assessed.  This  enor 
mous  taxation  was  five  times  greater  than  the  amount  of  the  state  and  county 
taxes  in  1860,  when  they  only  aggregated  $783,729. 

There  was  no  state  election  in  Mississippi  during  the  year  1872.  In  the 
Presidential  election,  Grant's  majority  over  Greeley  was  34,887.  The  Dem 
ocrats  gained  a  member  of  Congress  in  the  first  district.  The  other  four 
members  chosen  were  Republicans.  In  December,  1871,  Mr.  Alcorn  re 
signed  the  office  of  governor.  He  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate. 

The  minority  report  of  the  joint  select  committee  appointed  in  1871?  to 
investigate  Southern  affairs,  attributes  the  outrages  in  Mississippi  to  the  cor 
rupt  and  oppressive  county  governments.  These  imposed  taxes  from  five  to 
six-fold  greater  than  those  which  were  borne  by  the  people  before  the  war. 
The  same  report  gives  credit  to  Governor  Alcorn  for  his  efforts  to  check  ex 
travagance  and  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of  a  public  debt.  It  quotes  from 
his  message  of  January,  1871,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  expenditures  as 
making  a  ' '  startling  comparison  "  with  those  of  former  years. 

The  election  in  November,  1873,  resulted  favorably  to  the  Republicans, 
notwithstanding  the  dissatisfaction  of  a  large  number  who  organized  under 
the  name  of  "  The  Republican  Party  of  Mississippi."  The  Democratic  party 
held  a  convention.  They  decided  to  put  no  candidates  in  the  field  for  state 
officers.  It  was  understood  that  they  would  support  the  liberal  ticket.  They 
failed  to  do  so,  cordially.  The  regular  Republicans  nominated  General 
Ames  for  governor,  Alexander  Davis,  a  colored  man,  for  lieutenant-governor, 
James  Hill,  colored,  for  secretary  of  state,  and  J.  W.  Cardozo,  colored,  for 


OVERTHROW  OF  THE  MISSISSIPPI  RADICALS.  533 

superintendent  of  education.  The  nominees  of  the  regular  Republicans  for 
attorney-general,  auditor,  and  treasurer  were  denounced  by  the  Liberals  as 
corrupt  or  incompetent.  General  Ames  was  denounced  as  an  irresponsible 
non-resident.  The  same  terms  were  applied  to  one  or  more  of  his  col 
leagues  on  the  ticket.  The  Liberals  re-nominated  ex-Governor  Alcorn  for 
the  governorship.  The  result  of  the  election  was  that  Ames  received  74,307 
votes  as  against  52,904  for  Alcorn.  The  senate  was  made  up  of  twenty  Re 
publicans  and  fourteen  Democrats,  and  the  house  of  representatives  of  sixty- 
eight  Republicans  and  forty-four  Democrats. 

Enormous  as  were  the  taxes,  they  failed  to  equal  the  expenditures  during 
the  four  years  beginning  with  1870.  The  excess  of  expenditures  was  $871,- 
947.  A  general  convention  of  tax-payers  without  regard  to  party  met  at 
Jackson  on  the  fourth  of  January,  1875,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about 
reforms  in  the  administration  of  state  affairs.  A  committee  was  appointed 
which  drew  up  a  petition.  It  set  forth,  in  respectful  language,  the 
grievances.  It  represented  that  the  people  were  growing  poorer,  and  that 
the  value  of  their  land  was  reduced,  which  they  attributed  to  the  extravagant 
expenditures  of  the  state  government,  and  to  the  consequent  increase  of  taxa 
tion.  They  represented  that  the  tax  on  land  in  1869  was  ten  cents  on  the 
$100  of  assessed  value;  that  that  tax  was  four-fold  greater  in  1871,  eight 
times  greater  in  1872,  twelve  and  one-half  times  greater  in  1873,  and  four 
teen  times  greater  in  1874.  It  was  alleged  that  the  assessment  of  property 
was  greatly  above  its  market  value. 

Several  bills  were  introduced  in  the  legislature  having  in  view  the  reduc 
tion  of  expenses,  but  they  were  defeated  by  the  colored  members,  who  con 
stituted  a  large  part  of  the  body,  and  who  voted  solidly  against  them. 

In  1875  the  Democrats  made  a  determined  effort  to  regain  power.  Their 
convention,  which  met  at  Jackson  on  the  3d  of  August,  and  of  which  Mr. 
Lamar  was  the  leading  and  courageous  spirit,  adopted  an  extremely  liberal 
platform.  The  Republican  platform  was  a  repetition  of  the  well-known 
principles  of  that  party.  The  canvass  was  attended  with  much  disorder  and 
bloodshed.  Governor  Ames  applied  to  President  Grant  for  troops  to  quell 
the  "  domestic  violence."  His  application  was  refused.  President  Grant 
telegraphed  to  the  attorney-general  that  the  public  was  tired  of  the  annual 
autumnal  outbreaks  in  the  South. 

Failing  to  obtain  this  military  aid,  Governor  Ames  undertook  to  organize 
the  militia  to  aid  the  sheriffs  in  the  preservation  of  peace  while  the  election 
was  pending.  This  proceeding  brought  forth  an  earnest  protest  from  the 
Democratic  state  committee,  in  which  the  governor  was  charged  with  endeav 
oring  to  incite  a  war  of  races. 

The  election  resulted  in  an  overwhelming  Democratic  victory.  The 
Democv"*^.  candidate  for  treasurer  received  96,596  votes,  against  66,155  for 
the  Repubncan  candidate.  Of  the  six  members  of  Congress  to  which  the 


534  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

state  was  entitled,  five  Democrats  were  elected,  including  Mr.  Lamar,  in  the 
First  district.  The  state  senate  stood  twenty-six  Democrats  and  eleven  Re 
publicans,  and  in  the  house  of  representatives  there  were  ninety-seven  Dem 
ocrats  and  twenty  Republicans,  so  that  on  joint  ballot  in  the  legislature  the 
Democrats  had  a  majority  of  ninety-two.  The  credit  for  this  result  is  largely 
due  to  the  present  United  States  Senator  George.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  if  military  government  had  prevailed  in  Mississippi  during  the  election 
these  figures  would  have  been  reversed,  and  this  fact  is  conclusive  with 
many  why  military  rule  should  have  continued.  But  to  take  that  position, 
is  to  admit  that  the  large  negro  majority  in  the  state,  with  the  few  thousand 
whites  who  acted  with  it,  was  incapable  of  governing  the  state  ;  and  that  the 
white  minority,  unaided  by  the  Federal  military  force  and  without  Federal 
patronage,  could  govern  it.  A  state  administration  which  cannot  stand 
alone  has  no  reason  of  being.  It  ought  to  stand  aside.  Moreover,  it  is  in 
accordance  with  the  fitness  of  things  that  the  intelligent  tax-payers  should 
have  some  voice  in  the  control  of  the  state  that  imposes  the  taxes. 

Arkansas  belonged  to  the  Fourth  military  district.  Gen.  E.  O.  C.  Ord 
was  appointed  its  commander.  He  entered  upon  his  duties  March  26,  1867. 
On  the  1 5th  of  April  he  addressed  a  note  to  Gov.  Isaac  Murphy,  notifying 
him  that  the  provisional  legislature,  which  had  recently  been  in  session,  must 
not  re-assemble.  He  ordered  the  seizure  of  the  public  money  in  the  hands  of 
the  state  treasurer.  The  reasons  which  he  assigned  to  the  Secretary  of  War 
for  these  proceedings  were :  that  the  legislature  proposed  to  impeach  a 
judge,  mainly  for  the  reason  that  he  had  protected  loyal  men  ;  and  that  the 
state  treasurer  was  disloyal.  In  a  general  order  of  the  6th  of  September, 
1867,  he  enjoined  the  courts  against  proceeding  with  the  trial  of  offenders 
in  cases  wherein  two  credible  men  would  swear  to  their  belief  that  justice 
would  not  be  done.  This  order  was  subsequently  modified  by  Gen.  A. 
C.  Gillem,  to  the  extent  of  having  a  military  officer  detailed  to  pass  upon 
the  question  of  jurisdiction  of  the  courts. 

The  result  of  the  state  registration  was,  that  there  were  66,316  voters 
registered.  Of  these,  43,170  were  white  and  23,146  colored.  The  vote  on 
the  question  of  calling  a  convention  to  frame  a  constitution  was  small,  being 
little  more  than  half  the  registered  vote,  24,973  for,  and  11,293  against  it. 
Nearly  all  the  delegates  chosen  were  radicals.  The  constitution  framed  by 
this  convention  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  27,913  for  it,  and  26,597  agamst  it. 
Nearly  twenty  thousand  registered  voters  refrained  from  voting.  It  was 
charged,  and  proved,  that  undisguised  frauds  were  perpetrated  to  secure 
the  result.  Ballot-box  stuffing,  "repeating,"  and  other  forms  of  carrying 
elections  were  resorted  to.  When  even  these  were  not  effectual,  the  votes  of 
Democratic  counties  and  precincts  were  thrown  out  entirely.  The>g^?trictive 

clauses  of  this  constitution  were  most  oppressive,  depriving  larg/o)  '"^    <af 

I   *  class  es  * 


ARKANSAS  UNDER  MILITARY  RULE.  535 

the  white  population  of  the  right  to  \ote  or  hold  office.     These  were  all, 
however,  omitted  from  the  constitution  of  1874. 

Mutual  charges  of  fraud  on  the   one  part  and  intimidation  on  the  other 
part  were  made  by  the  opposition  parties  in  reference  to  this  election.     It 
Avas  represented  on  the  Democratic  side  that  Little  Rock  was  overrun  with 
political  adventurers  charmed  with  the  allurements  of  office  and  flattered  by 
the  hope  of  greatness  ;  that  these  men,  many  of  them  being  registrars,  had 
committed  frauds  which  they  justified  by  falsehood  and  were  willing  to  clinch 
with  perjury  ;  that  there  was  a  greater  amount  of  scoundrelism  there  than  ever 
was  before  concentrated  at  one  place  in  the  same  age ;  that  the  frauds  com 
mitted  upon  the  ballot  in  many  of  the  counties  were  shameless  and  enor 
mous,  having  no  parallel  in  all  history ;    that  women  and   children  were 
allowed  to  vote  ;  that  they  voted  early  and  voted  often,  traveling  from  ballot- 
box  to  ballot-box  ;  that  some  ballot-boxes  were  stuffed,  while  votes  were  ab 
stracted  from  others ;  that  votes  offered  by  duly-registered  voters  were  torn 
up  and  thrown  under  the  table  by  the  registrars,  and  that  the  indefinite  con 
tinuance  of  military  authority  was  preferable  to   the  sanctioning  of  these 
shameless  frauds.      On  the  other  side,  it   was  charged  that  the  freedmen 
were  to  a  large  extent  intimidated  and  deterred   from  voting,  and  that  a 
general  conspiracy  had  been  entered  into  by  what  was  known  as  the  u  White 
Man's  party,"  to  prevent  freedmen  from  voting  at  all  hazards.     These  charges 
were  made  in  relation  to  several  townships  and  counties.     Congress,  how 
ever,  took  little  notice  of  these  mutual  charges,  or  of  the  doubt  thus  thrown 
on  the  election.     Having  decided  to  admit  Alabama,  whose  people  had  failed 
to  ratify   the  constitution   by  a  majority  of    the  registered  votes,    it  would 
have  seemed  whimsical  to  higgle  over  Arkansas  on  account  of  some  alleged 
irregularities  by  which  the  majority  was  secured.     The  state  was  admitted 
on  June  22.       President  Johnson  vetoed   the  act;    but  Congress  passed  it 
over  the  veto.     The  act  imposed  the  same  condition  with  respect  to  amend 
ment  of  the  constitution  in  regard  to  the  elective  franchise  that  was  after 
ward  prescribed  in  the  cases  of  North  Carolina  and  other  states,  and  that  has 
already  been  noted  in  an  earlier  chapter. 

The  legislature  assembled  on  the  ist  of  April,  1868,  without  waiting  for 
the  formal  announcement  of  recognition  by  Congress.  It  revised  the  laws. 
It  ratified  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  on  the  6th  of  April.  The  acts  passed 
before  the  admission  of  the  state  were  held  by  the  legislature  to  have  been 
made  valid  by  that  event.  The  military  commander,  in  a  general  order  dated 
June  30,  declared  that  the  acts  of  Congress  under  which  the  state  had  been 
acting  in  military  subjection  had  ceased  to  have  force.  Accordingly  he  turned 
over  to  the  civil  authorities  the  public  archives,  buildings,  and  all  property  of 
the  state. 

The  governor-elect,  Powell  Clayton,  was  inaugurated  on  the  2d  of  July, 
1868.      In  the  Presidential  election  of  that  year,  General    Grant   received 


536        THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

22,152  votes,  and  Mr.  Seymour  19,078.  The  aggregate  vote  was  less  than  the 
white  registered  vote  alone.  The  legislature  which  was  elected  at  the  same 
time  contained  only  two  Democrats — one  in  each  house.  Two  years  after 
ward  the  Democrats  elected  two  out  of  the  three  congressmen.  They  made 
large  gains  in  the  legislature  —  the  senate  consisting  of  eighteen  Republicans 
and  eight  Democrats  (or  "Conservatives"),  and  the  house  of  forty-five  Re 
publicans,  twenty-nine  Democrats,  and  nine  Liberals.  Two  of  the  senators 
and  eight  of  the  representatives  were  colored. 

The  legislature,  in  1869,  passed  an  act  for  funding  the  public  debt.  This 
gave  rise  to  much  controversy.  Some  thirty  years  previously  the  state  had 
lent  its  credit,  in  the  shape  of  six  per  cent,  bonds  to  the  amount  of  $500,000, 
to  an  institution  known  as  the  Real  Estate  Bank ;  and  to  the  amount  of 
$441 ,000  to  the  State  Bank.  The  bonds  issued  to  the  Real  Estate  Bank 
were  hypothecated  to  the  American  Trust  Company  of  New- York,  to  cover 
a  loan  of  $121,336.  They  were  subsequently  pledged  by  the  Trust  Com 
pany  to  a  London  banking  firm,  for  a  loan  of  $325,000.  The  Trust  Com 
pany  became  insolvent.  The  state  bonds  passed  into  the  ownership  of 
James  Holford,  of  London.  At  that  time  they  were  ascertained  to  be 
of  the  actual  value  of  $425,000.  Although,  according  to  legal  and  equi 
table  principles,  the  state  was  only  liable  for  the  amount  for  which  the 
bonds  were  pledged  with  the  American  Trust  Company,  and  which,  with 
interest  to  1869,  made  $340,000,  the  legislature  passed  an  act  authorizing 
the  issue  of  new  bonds  to  Holford  or  his  assigns  to  the  amount  of  $1,370,- 
ooo,  being  for  the  full  original  sum  of  $500,000,  with  interest  from  Sep 
tember,  1840,  to  January,  1870.  No  such  act  could  have  passed  in  a  legis 
lature  whose  members  represented  the  tax-payers.  Certainly  it  was  not 
passed  out  of  respect  for  the  plighted  faith  of  the  state. 

Governor  Clayton,  although  sufficiently  influential  to  secure  an  election 
to  the  United  States  Senate  at  a  later  day,  was  growing  unpopular  with 
his  party.  Resolutions  denouncing  his  administration  were  adopted  at  a 
public  meeting  held  at  Little  Rock  in  April,  1869.  At  that  meeting, 
eighteen  members  of  the  legislature  are  said  to  have  been  present.  His 
management  of  affairs  was  denounced  as  criminal  and  corrupt.  The  legis 
lature  also  came  in  for  a  share  of  this  condemnation,  especially  in  regard  to 
the  funding  of  the  public  debt. 

Governor  Clayton  was  elected  Senator  on  the  roth  of  January,  1871,  by 
a  vote  of  ninety-four,  on  joint  ballot,  in  a  total  vote  of  103.  The  term  was 
to  commence  on  the  4th  of  March  following.  A  quarrel  had  sprung  up 
between  the  governor  and  the  lieutenant-governor,  Johnson.  A  desperate 
effort  was  made  to  get  rid  of  Johnson,  so  that  he  should  not  succeed  to  the 
governorship.  Articles  of  impeachment  were  introduced  against  him  on 
the  ground  that  he  had  "  wrongfully  and  corruptly"  sworn  in  Joseph  Brooks 
as  a  state  senator  before  the  senate  had  passed  upon  his  credentials.  This 


RIVAL  REPUBLICANS  IN  ARKANSAS.  537 

attempt  met  with  little  favor.  It  was  indefinitely  postponed.  Another 
equally  futile  attempt  to  get  him  out  of  the  way  was  based  upon  his  non- 
compliance  with  the  law  in  respect  of  the  time  at  which  he  should  take  the 
oath  of  office.  But  Clayton  was  not  to  be  balked  in  his  determination  to 
keep  Johnson  out  of  the  executive  chair.  He  declined  the  senatorship 
rather  than  have  Johnson  as  his  successor.  He  stated  in  his  letter  of 
declination  that  an  anti-Republican  coalition  had  been  formed  under  the 
leadership  of  the  lieutenant-governor  between  a  few  Republicans  and  the 
conservatives  of  both  houses,  having  for  its  object  the  overthrow  of  the 
existing  state  government  on  the  one  part,  and  the  gratification  of  private 
malice  and  revenge  on  the  other ;  and  that  he  could  not,  by  any  act  of  his, 
be  instrumental  in  placing  the  leader  of  that  coalition  in  the  executive  chair. 

The  reasons  assigned  by  Governor  Clayton  for  his  course  seem  manly 
and  honorable.  His  action  upon  them  displayed  an  unusual  degree  of  cour 
age  and  firmness.  As  a  rule,  the  office  of  governor  is  esteemed  chiefly  as  a 
stepping-stone  to  the  Federal  Senate,  and  in  this  case  the  term  of  Governor 
Clayton  had  less  than  two  years  to  run,  with  only  a  chance  of  his  re-election. 

A  counter-attempt  was  made  on  the  part  of  the  lieutenant-governor  and 
his  friends  to  impeach  the  governor  on  various  charges.  Another  attempt 
was  made  to  impeach  Judge  McClure,  of  the  supreme  court.  Both  failed. 
Finally,  the  rivals  concluded  to  bury  their  quarrel.  The  governor  induced 
the  lieutenant-governor  to  accept  the  office  of  secretary  of  state.  This  was 
a  position  that  was  preferable  to  the  contingent  right  to  the  executive  office. 
A.  W.  Hadley,  a  friend  of  Clayton's,  was  then  chosen  president  of  the  sen 
ate,  which  officer  is  ex  officio  lieutenant-governor.  The  succession  being 
thus  arranged  in  the  interest  of  the  Republicans,  Clayton  was  again  elected 
United  States  Senator. 

The  elections  in  the  fall  of  1872  resulted  in  another  Republican  victory. 
President  Grant  received  41,073  votes,  and  Mr.  Greeley  37,927  ;  Baxter,  the 
Republican  candidate  for  governor,  received  41,681  votes,  and  his  opponent, 
Brooks,  38,415.  The  other  Republican  candidates  for  state  office  received 
majorities  not  materially  different  from  those  of  the  President  and  governor. 
There  were  four  counties  from  which  no  returns  were  made  or  counted.  In 
these  counties  the  Democrats  were  in  the  majority.  There  were  irregulari 
ties  in  the  registration.  The  registrars  had  failed  or  neglected  to  perform 
their  duties,  and  in  most  cases  where  this  was  the  case  there  was  no  election 
held.  Much  complaint  was  made,  and  on  the  2oth  of  December,  1872,  one 
of  the  Senators  from  that  state,  Mr.  Rice,  offered  a  resolution  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  proceed  to  Little 
Rock  and  investigate  all  matters  growing  out  of  the  election. 

Mr.  Rice  had  supported  Mr.  Greeley's  candidacy.  He  said,  in  support 
of  his  resolution,  that  the  names  of  nearly  thirty  thousand  registered  voters 
had  been  arbitrarily,  and  without  notice,  stricken  off  the  registration-books ; 

34 


538  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

and  that  as  many  as  fifteen  thousand  votes  had  been  counted  that  had  never 
been  cast.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  when  the  returns  came  to  be  made 
up,  they  showed,  he  said,  that  the  Democrats  had  a  clear  majority  of  about 
three  thousand  ;  and,  to  avoid  these  returns  as  originally  made  out,  certain 
counties  and  precincts  were  thrown  out,  and  other  falsifications  of  returns 
made ;  so  that  there  was  a  majority  of  about  three  thousand  made  out  the 
other  way.  Mr.  Clayton,  the  colleague  of  Mr.  Rice,  contented  himself  with 
a  bantering  reply.  He  made  a  general  but  not  a  specific  denial.  The  resolu 
tion  was  not  acted  on,  the  majority  in  the  Senate  being  averse  to  the  pro 
posed  investigation. 

But  a  revolution  of  politics  caused  the  Republicans,  a  year  or  two  after 
ward,  to  see  the  matter  in  a  different  light.  By  a  not  singular  turn  of 
affairs  in  the  history  of  reconstruction,  the  parties  to  the  controversy  changed 
sides  ;  or,  at  least,  changed  their  relations  to  the  dominant  party  in  Congress. 
Baxter  became  identified  in  interest  with  the  Democrats,  while  Brooks  went 
over  to  the  Administration,  which  met  him  half  way.  The  general  assem 
bly  counted  the  votes  for  governor,  and  declared  Baxter  elected  on  January 
19.  In  April,  Brooks  petitioned  that  body  to  be  allowed  to  contest  the 
election,  but  his  application  was  voted  down  by  sixty-three  to  nine. 

Mr.  Brooks  then  made  an  application  to  the  circuit  court  for  an  injunc 
tion  to  restrain  Baxter  from  exercising  the  office  of  governor.  This  w;as  de 
nied.  He  next  applied  to  the  supreme  court  for  a  writ  of  quo  ivarranto. 
This  was  denied.  It  was  denied  on  the  ground  that  the  determination  of 
the  question  was  vested  by  the  constitution  exclusively  in  the  general  as 
sembly,  and  that  no  state  court  had  jurisdiction. 

Finally,  Brooks  brought  suit  against  Baxter  in  the  circuit  court  of 
Pulaski  County,  under  section  525  of  the  civil  code,  anterior  to  the  constitu 
tion  of  1868.  This  section  provided  that  an  action  at  law  might  be  instituted 
against  any  person  who  usurped  an  office  or  franchise  to  which  he  was  not 
entitled  by  law  ;  and  that  the  action  might  be  brought  either  by  the  state  or 
by  the  party  entitled  to  the  office  or  franchise.  In  his  petition  Brooks  claimed 
that  he  had  received  more  than  45 ,000  votes,  while  Baxter  had  received  less 
than  30,000.  He  asked  that  Baxter  should  be  ousted,  and  that  he,  Brooks, 
should  be  awarded  $2,000  for  salary. 

Mr.  Berry,  who  claimed  to  have  been  elected  auditor  on  the  same  ticket 
with  Mr.  Brooks,  made  the  same  kind  of  demand.  The  case  against  Baxter 
was  pushed  through  rapidly.  It  precluded  a  similar  recourse  on  his  part ; 
and  the  Pulaski  court  decided  against  him,  on  a  demurrer  to  the  jurisdiction. 

Brooks  had  his  plans  arranged.  With  a  sufficient  force  of  men,  he  took 
possession,  in  the  absence  of  Baxter,  of  the  governor's  office,  including  the 
public  records  and  the  great  seal.  This  happened  on  the  I5th  of  April, 
18/4.  Governor  Baxter,  on  learning  these  facts,  took  up  his  quarters  at  St. 
John's  College,  in  another  part  of  the  town.  Both  governors,  on  the  same 


THE  BROOKS  AND  BAXTER  CONTEST. 


539 


day,  sent  dispatches  to  President  Grant.  Brooks  announced  his  installation 
as  governor  by  the  judgment  of  a  court.  He  asked  that  the  commanding 
officer  at  the  arsenal  be  instructed  to  deliver  to  him  the  arms  in  his  custody 
belonging  to  the  state,  or  to  hold  them  subject  to  his,  Brooks's,  order.  No 
allusion  was  made  to  the  rugged  road  by  which  he  had  reached  the  executive 
chair.  Baxter,  in  his  dispatch  to  the  President,  briefly  recounted  the  facts  of 
the  seizure  of  the  office  by  his  rival.  He  described  them  as  revolutionary. 
He  stated  his  purpose  to  take  measures  immediately  to  resume  possession  of 
the  state  property,  and  to  maintain  his  authority.  He  expressed  the  hope 
that  the  matter  might  be  settled  without  bloodshed.  He  requested  the  Pres 
ident  to  authorize  the  officer  in  command  at  the  United  States  arsenal  to  sus 
tain  him. 

The  application  of  Brooks  to  be  put  in  possession  of  the  state  arms  was 
rejected,  on  the  ground  that  his  claim  of  right  to  the  office  of  governor  had 
not  been  finally  decided  by  the  courts  of  the  state.  Baxter  was  informed 
by  a  telegram  from  Attorney-General  Williams,  and  by  authority  of  the 
President,  that  his  call  for  aid  was  not  made  in  conformity  with  the  Con 
stitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  that,  as  the  controversy  related 
to  the  right  to  hold  a  state  office,  its  adjudication  belonged  to  the  state  courts. 

Each  party  proceeded  to  raise  military  forces.  War  threatened.  In  this 
undertaking  Mr.  Baxter  seems  to  have  been  the  more  successful.  He  was 
soon  strong  enough  to  besiege  his  rival  in  the  state  house,  and  several  col 
lisions  occurred,  not  without  bloodshed.  After  the  interchange  of  several 
dispatches  between  the  President  or  Attorney-General  and  the  rival  claimants 
of  the  governor's  office,  the  President  proposed  a  compromise.  It  was  that 
the  two  should  issue  simultaneous  proclamations  for  the  assembling  of  the 
legislature,  at  the  same  place,  on  the  same  day.  The  President  suggested  to 
Brooks  that  in  this  way  his  friends  whom  he  claimed  to  be  elected  to  the 
legislature  could  be  brought  into  that  body.  As  the  legislature  had  already 
been  organized  by  the  friends  of  Baxter,  this  proposition  was  manifestly 
favorable  to  his  claims.  But,  strange  to  say,  while  Brooks  promptly  ac 
cepted  it,  Baxter  declined  it,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  an  admission  of 
Brooks's  right  of  contest.  Besides,  Baxter  had  already  issued  a  call  for 
a  special  session  of  the  assembly.  As  soon  as  that  body  met,  it  repeated  its 
former  decision,  that  Baxter  was  the  duly-elected  governor.  This  point  hav 
ing  been  decided,  President  Grant  issued  a  proclamation,  dated  May  15,  1874. 
It  recognized  Baxter  as  governor.  It  characterized  the  Brooks  movement  as 
a  combination  on  the  part  of  "  certain  turbulent  and  disorderly  persons"  to 
resist  with  force  and  arms  the  authority  of  Elisha  Baxter,  the  executive  of 
Arkansas ;  and  commanded  them  to  disperse  and  retire  peaceably  to  their 
several  abodes,  and  to  submit  themselves  to  the  lawfully  constituted  author 
ities  of  the  state. 

This  executive  mandate,  of  course,  put  an  end  to  the  controversy.     But, 


540  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

somehow,  during  its  continuance  Baxter  had  become  reconciled  with  the 
white  race,  or  the  Democratic  element,  while  the  sympathy  of  the  opposite 
party  had  been  transferred  to  Brooks.  The  change  was  not  without  its 
influence  upon  the  mind  of  President  Grant,  as  will  presently  be  shown. 

The  same  legislature  which  settled  the  gubernatorial  controversy  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  President  passed  an  act  providing  for  the  call  of  a  consti 
tutional  convention.  This  convention  assembled  on  the  I4th  of  July  ; — 80,- 
259  votes  having  been  cast  in  favor  of  it,  and  only  8,607  against  it.  It  was 
composed  of  ninety-one  delegates.  Radical  changes  were  made  in  the  con 
stitution  of  1868.  All  the  changes  favored  "a  larger  liberty."  All  the  old 
prescriptive  clauses  were  swept  away.  It  was  provided  that  the  judicial  and 
other  state  officers  should  be  elected  by  the  people  instead  of  being  appointed 
by  the  governor.  That  official  is  said  to  have  had  more  official  patronage 
than  any  other  state  governor.  Many  other  changes  were  made,  but  no  right 
of  the  colored  race  was  abridged. 

The  new  constitution  was  ratified  on  the  I3th  of  October,  1874,  by  a  vote 
of  78,697  for  it,  to  24,807  against  it.  This  immense  majority  in  its  favor 
shows  that  the  people  had  no  sympathy  with  the  prescriptive  policy  of  the 
Northern  adventurers,  nor  with  their  scheme  for  prolonging  their  hold  on 
power  by  conferring  the  appointments  to  office  on  the  governor.  The  leg 
islature  and  state  officers  were  chosen  on  the  same  day.  The  nomination  for 
the  governorship  was  offered  to  Baxter  by  the  Democratic  convention.  This 
shows  that  he  had,  with  great  good  sense,  gone  to  that  party.  But  he  de 
clined  ;  and  Mr.  Augustus  H.  Garland  was  nominated  and  elected  governor. 
He  lives  to  illustrate  his  fitness  as  the  great  friend  of  popular  government  and 
legal  interpretations. 

At  the  nominating  convention  held  by  the  Republicans  on  the  i5th  of 
September,  they  adopted  a  long  address.  They  declared  the  acts  of  the  con 
stitutional  convention  null  and  void.  Had  it  not  been  called  by  a  man  called 
Baxter,  who  was  not  governor  ?  Had  he  not  been  ousted  from  that  office  by 
the  decision  of  the  Pulaski  County  court?  They  asserted  that  Brooks  was 
governor,  and  that  all  Baxter's  official  acts  were  illegal. 

The  singular  turn  of  affairs  in  Arkansas  by  which  the  leaders  of  the  two 
parties  were  found  to  have  exchanged  positions,  and  by  which  the  parties 
themselves  changed  positions,  had  its  effect  on  President  Grant.  It  caused 
him  alsp  to  change  his  course.  In  a  message  to  the  Senate,  dated  Feb.  8, 
1875,  — less  than  nine  months  from  the  date  of  his  proclamation  denouncing 
Brooks  and  his  supporters  as  "turbulent  and  disorderly," — he  expressed  the 
opinion  that  Brooks  had  been  lawfully  elected  governor  in  1872,  and  had  been 
since  that  time  unlawfully  deprived  of  his  office ;  that  the  constitution  of 
1868  had  been  overthrown,  the  new  constitution  adopted,  and  the  new  state 
government  established  by  violence,  intimidation,  and  revolutionary  proceed 
ings  ;  and  that,  if  these  proceedings  were  allowed  to  stand,  the  rights  of  mi- 


ARKANSAS  EXILES  AND  GHOSTS.  541 

norities  in  all  the  states  would  be  practically  ignored.  He  submitted  whether 
such  a  dangerous  precedent  should  be  recognized  by  Congress.  He  asked 
that  Congress  should  take  definite  action  in  the  matter.  Congress  took  its 
best  step  toward  regeneration  then  and  there.  Judge  Poland  was  its  expo 
nent.  Let  it  be  known  that  Baxter  was  the  radical  Republican  candidate  for 
governor  in  1872,  while  Brooks  was  the  Greeley-Republican  candidate,  with 
the  Democrats  as  his  chief  supporters  ;  that  a  Republican  legislature  counted 
the  vote  in  January,  1873  ;  that  it  declared  their  candidate,  Baxter,  elected  by 
a  majority  of  between  three  and  four  thousand  votes  ;  that  the  same  assem 
bly  rejected,  by  a  vote  of  sixty-three  to  nine,  Brooks's  petition  for  leave  to 
contest  the  possession  of  the  office ;  that  the  supreme  court  of  the  state  re 
fused  to  hear  his  case  ;  and  that  President  Grant  had  pronounced  Baxter  to 
be  the  lawfully  elected  governor.  And  yet  President  Grant  sent  this  mes 
sage  to  Congress  in  February,  1875, —  Brooks  having  in  the  meantime  joined 
the  Republicans  and  Baxter  having  coalesced  with  the  Democrats : 

"  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Brooks  was  defrauded  of  his  right  to 
the  office  of  governor.  But  the  Republican  legislature  which  '  counted 
him  out '  had  under  the  constitution  the  exclusive  right  to  count  the  vote  and 
declare  the  result.  Redress  can  only  come  from  the  people  at  the  next  elec 
tion." 

But  Brooks  in  the  meantime  had  drifted  into  the  ranks  of  his  enemies. 

Notwithstanding  General  Grant's  potentiality  then  and  there,  his  appeal 
to  Congress  to  intervene  in  behalf  of  Brooks  and  of  the  old  constitution  was 
without  effect.  The  House  of  Representatives  had  appointed  a  committee 
to  investigate  the  affairs  of  Arkansas.  That  committee  made  majority  and 
minority  reports  on  the  6th  of  February.  The  majority  report,  made  by  the 
chairman,  Mr.  Poland,  of  Vermont,  was  to  the  effect  that  the  government 
of  Arkansas  was  proceeding  peaceably  and  prosperously,  and  that  there  was 
nothing  in  the  history  of  the  adoption  of  the  new  constitution  that  called 
upon  Congress  or  any  department  of  the  government  to  step  in  and  wipe  it 
out.  Mr.  Poland, —  a  grand  tribune  of  the  states  and  of  the  people, —  in  a 
speech  advocating  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report,  reminded  his  political 
friends  that  Brooks,  with  the  emphasis  of  honesty  and  the  courage  of  an 
honest  soul, — that  man  who  now  so  commended  himself  to  them, —  had  been 
the  candidate  of  the  Democrats  and  of  the  Greeley  Republicans.  He  re 
minded  them  that  the  fraud  upon  him  had  been  carried  out  by  the  regular 
Republican  organization,  at  whose  head  stood  Senator  Powell  Clayton,  with 
Chief  Justice  McClure,  sometimes  designated  by  the  unprofessional  name 
of  "Poker  Jack,"  next  in  command. 

Referring  to  a  figure  of  speech  used  in  the  discussion  by  Mr.  Coburn,  of 
Indiana,  who  said  that  "the  lawful  and  exiled  governor  of  Arkansas  had  been 
stalking  like  a  ghost  in  their  midst  for  the  whole  winter,"  Judge  Poland  re- 


542  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

marked  that  the  ''ghosts"  who  marched  by  his  side  were  the  very  men 
who  had  defrauded  him  out  of  his  election,  who  had  cheated  him  in  every 
possible  way,  who  had  stuffed  ballot-boxes,  had  figured  with  the  returns, 
and  who  had  kept  out  the  votes  of  three  whole  counties,  and  of  forty  or  fifty 
townships  in  other  counties. 

No  further  action  was  taken  in  the  matter  either  by  Congress  or  the 
national  executive,  and  the  government  of  Arkansas  was  left  to  itself,  un 
troubled  by  Federal  interference. 

The  majority  report  of  the  "joint  select  committee  on  the  condition  of 
affairs  in  the  late  insurrectionary  states,"  made  the  I9th  of  February,  1872, 
states  that  the  debt  of  Arkansas  was,  in  1860,  $4,036,952  ;  in  1865,  exclu 
sive  of  the  debt  incurred  in  the  rebellion,  which  was  repudiated,  $4,527,- 
879;  in  1868,  $4,820,630;  and  on  the  i4th  of  November,  1871,  $5,361,265, 
with  "  contingent  liabilities"  for  railroads  amounting  to  $6,512,694,  and  with 
"  prospective  contingent  liabilities"  amounting  to  $7,877,306. 

The  minority  report  states  the  debt  at  the  same  date  as  follows : 

Bonded  and  funded  debt, $5,051,265 

Floating  debt,        .........  190,000 

Due  for  interest,             1 20,000 

Amounts  awarded  to  railroads,       ......  11,400,000 

Levee  bonds, 3,000,000 

Total, $19,761,265 

The  enormous  increase  of  the  taxes,  state  and  county,  was  not  sufficient 
to  satisfy  the  rapacity  of  the  adventurers. 

There  are  so  many  ways  of  stating  the  amount  of  the  public  debt,  as  the 
debt  proper  and  the  debt  contingent,  that  it  is  difficult  to  arrive  at  any 
clear  notion  of  it,  except  that  the  debt  of  Arkansas  was  greatly  increased. 
Besides,  there  was  the  expenditure  of  an  immense  revenue  during  the  Re 
publican  or  carpet-bag  rule,  and  there  was  nothing  in  the  way  of  public  im 
provements  left  to  show  for  the  expenditure. 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 


RECONSTRUCTION   IN  THE   FIFTH    MILITARY  DISTRICT. 

LOUISIANA  —  GENERAL  SHERIDAN'S  REMOVAL  OF  STATE  OFFICIALS  —  HIS  QUAR 
REL  WITH,  AND  REMOVAL  OF,  GOVERNOR  WELLS  —  THE  PRESIDENT'S  ORDER 
AS  TO  REGISTRATION  DISREGARDED— RESULTS  OF  REGISTRATION  — FORTY 
THOUSAND  WHITES  EXCLUDED  FROM  SUFFRAGE  —  REMOVAL  AND  APPOINT 
MENT  OF  NEW  ORLEANS  ALDERMEN  AND  OTHER  OFFICERS  — GENERAL 
SHERIDAN  SUCCEEDED  BY  GENERAL  HANCOCK  — HIS  SPECIAL  ORDER  ON 
ASSUMING  COMMAND  — RE-INSTATEMENT  OF  STATE  OFFICIALS —MEETING 
OF  THE  STATE  CONVENTION  —  THE  NEW  CONSTITUTION  RATIFIED  BY  THE 
PEOPLE— GENERAL  HANCOCK'S  REMOVAL  OF  OFFICIALS  NOT  SUSTAINED' BY 
GENERAL  GRANT  —  GENERAL  HANCOCK  RELIEVED  AT  HIS  OWN  REQUEST  — 
THE  DISFRANCHISING  CLAUSE  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION  —  THE  PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION  IN  NOVEMBER,  1868- IMMENSE  DEMOCRATIC  MAJORITIES —EX 
PLANATION  OF  THE  FACTS  — THE  NEGROES  TERRORIZED  AND  LARGE  NUM 
BERS  OF  THEM  KILLED  — THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1869  — GOVERNOR  WAR- 
MOTH'S  MESSAGE  — MEASURES  OF  SOCIAL  EQUALITY  AND  OF  PUBLIC  PLUN 
DER—LOW  OPINION  OF  THE  MEMBERS  — LOBBYING  AND  BRIBING  BY  THE 
"BEST  PEOPLE"  — THE  STATE  AUDITOR  IMPEACHED  — THE  ELECTION  OF  NO 
VEMBER,  1870  — THE  REPUBLICANS  TRIUMPHANT  — REPEAL  OF  THE  DISFRAN 
CHISING  CLAUSE— QUARREL  BETWEENTHE  REPUBLICAN  FACTIONS  — MOVE 
MENTS  AND  COUNTER -MOVEMENTS  — CHARACTER  OF  GOVERNOR  WAR- 
MOTH —HIS  EXPOSURE  OF  LEGISLATIVE  PROFLIGACY— MUTUAL  CHARGES 
OF  KNAVERY  BETWEEN  THE -REPUBLICAN  LEADERS  — HOW  THEY  ALL  EN 
RICHED  THEMSELVES— THE  FALL  ELECTION  OF  1872  — TWO  RETURNING 
BOARDS  DECIDING  THE  RESULTS  DIFFERENTLY  —  RIVAL  LEGISLATURES  — 
WARMOTH  IMPEACHED  — PINCHBACK  ASSUMES  THE  EXECUTIVE  OFFICE, 
AND  IS  SUSTAINED  BY  PRESIDENT  GRANT  — THE  PACKARD  LEGISLATURE, 
AND  ITS  METHODS— THE  McENERY  LEGISLATURE  ORGANIZED  AND  SUS 
TAINED—TWO  GOVERNORS  —  KELLOGG  AND  McENERY  INAUGURATED  — 
SENATE  COMMITTEE  OF  INQUIRY  —  McENERY  SUSTAINED  BY  THE  PEOPLE 

—  ARREST    OF   THE    McENERY    LEGISLATURE  — MILITARY    RECOGNITION    OF 
THE  KELLOGG  GOVERNMENT  — McENERY  GIVES  UP   THE  FIGHT  — SANGUIN 
ARY  CONFLICTS  IN  THE  PARISHES  — THE  COUSHATTA  MASSACRE -UPRISING 
IN  NEW  ORLEANS  AGAINST  THE  KELLOGG  GOVERNMENT  — PROCLAMATION 
BY  THE    PRESIDENT  —  KELLOGG'S  GOVERNMENT    RE-ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
MILITARY  —  COMPROMISE  EFFECTED  BY  A  HOUSE  COMMITTEE  — FINANCIAL 
STATEMENT  — TEXAS  — GENERAL    SHERIDAN'S    REPORT    OF   THE    BAD    CON 
DITION    OF     AFFAIRS  -  GENERAL     GRIFFIN'S    ORDER  —  REMOVAL    OF    THE 
GOVERNOR  AND  OTHER  STATE  OFFICIALS  —  GENERAL  SHERIDAN'S  REPORT 

—  HIS   REFLECTIONS   ON   PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  — THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  CON 
VENTION— STATISTICS  OF   CRIME  — THE    CONSTITUTIONS    OF  1868  AND  1876  — 
GENERAL    REYNOLDS     CO-OPERATING    WITH    THE    RADICALS  —  FINANCIAL 
STATEMENT. 

GENERAL  Philip    Sheridan   was   appointed    commander  of  the 
Fifth   military  district,  composed  of  the  states  of  Louisiana  and 
Texas.     In  his  order  assuming  command,  he  announced  that  the 
existing  state  and  municipal  governments  of  Louisiana  and  Texas 
were  provisional  only,  but  that  no  removals  from  office  would  be  made  unless 
the  incumbents  should  fail  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  the  reconstruction 
law,  or  impede  "  reorganization." 


544  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Among  the  first  acts  of  General  Sheridan  as  commander  of  the  Fifth  dis 
trict  were  the  removals  of  Judge  E.  A.  Abell,  of  the  criminal  court  of  New 
Orleans,  Andrew  S.  Herron,  Attorney-General  of  the  State  of  Louisiana, 
and  John  T.  Monroe,  Mayor  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans.  These  removals 
were  made  on  the  29th  of  March,  1867.  The  ground  stated  for  Judge 
Abell's  removal  was  that  he  had,  for  nine  months  previous  to  July  30,  1866, 
been  educating  a  large  portion  of  the  community  to  the  perpetration  of  the 
outrages  which  were  committed  on  that  day,  by  almost  promising  that  there 
should  be  no  prosecution  in  his  court  against  the  offenders  in  case  such  an 
event  occurred.  The  reason  given  for  the  removal  of  Attorney-General 
Herron  was  that,  instead  of  indicting  the  rioters  he  indicted  the  victims,  and 
was  therefore  a  suspected  coadjutor  of  Judge  Abell  in  bringing  on  the  mas 
sacre.  As  to  Mayor  Monroe,  the  reason  given  was  that  he  controlled  the 
element  engaged  in  the  riot,  and  felt  secure  in  the  support  of  the  attorney- 
general  who  would  not  prosecute  the  guilty,  and  of  the  judge  who  advised 
the  grand  jury  to  find  the  innocent  guilty  and  let  the  murderers  go  free. 

The  registration  was  ordered  to  commence  on  the  ist  of  May  and  to  be 
completed  on  the  3<Dth  of  June.  General  Sheridan  stated  in  a  dispatch  to 
General  Grant,  that  he  anticipated  no  trouble  in  the  work,  and  that  the  people 
generally  would  register.  He  said  that  he  had  in  no  way  sought  to  mould 
the  public  mind  to  an  acceptance  or  non-acceptance  of  the  law,  but  had  in 
formed  the  people  that  the  law  would  be  enforced  and  the  reorganization  ac 
complished  ;  and  that  he  thought  his  course  was  not  unacceptable  to  a  major*- 
ity  of  the  people  in  the  state.  He  said  that,  in  appointing  registrars  through 
out  the  state,  he  had  invariably  selected  two  citizens  residents  of  the  parish, 
and  one  ex-army  officer  from  the  city  of  New  Orleans.  This  gave  him,  he 
said,  a  check  on  each  board  by  having  a  tried  and  true  man  as  chairman. 
He  added  that  he  had  the  boards  supervised  by  intelligent  army  officers.  He 
intimated  that  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States  should  not  hamper 
him  too  much,  as  no  one  could  conceive  or  estimate,  at  so  great  a  distance, 
the  precautions  necessary  to  be  taken  in  the  existing  condition  of  society 
there. 

The  legislature  of  Louisiana,  at  the  session  of  i866-'67,  had  appropriated 
$4,000,000  in  state  bonds  for  repairing  the  levees.  The  disbursement  of  this 
money  gave  rise  to  a  quarrel  between  the  governor,  James  Madison  Wells, 
and  the  legislature.  General  Sheridan  settled  the  controversy  somewhat 
after  the  fashion  of  the  monkey  in  the  fable,  when  the  cats  quarreled  over  the 
cheese.  Both  governor  and  legislature  were  dismissed,  and  the  money  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  a  board  of  commissioners  selected  by  the  commander 
of  the  Fifth  military  district.  This  board  was  appointed  by  him  on  the  3d  of 
May.  On  the  3d  of  June,  General  Sheridan  issued  a  special  order  em 
bodying  a  dispatch  from  Secretary  Stanton  which  directed  the  suspension  of 
proceedings  on  the  part  of  the  board.  The  same  special  order  contained 


GENERAL  SHERIDAN'S  OPINION  OF  GOVERNOR  WELLS.        545 

the  following  clause:  "His  Excellency,  the  Governor  of  Louisiana,  J. 
Madison  Wells,  having  made  himself  an  impediment  to  the  faithful  execution 
of  the  act  of  Congress  of  March  2,  1867,  by  directly  and  indirectly  impeding 
the  general  in  command  in  the  execution  of  the  law,  is  hereby  removed  from 
the  office  of  governor  of  Louisiana,  and  Mr.  Thomas  J.  Durant  is  appointed 
thereto.  Mr.  Durant  will  be  obeyed  and  respected  accordingly/' 

Mr.  Durant  declined  this  appointment,  and  Benjamin  F.  Flanders  was 
appointed  in  his  stead. 

Governor  Wells  resisted  the  order  of  dismissal  as  well  as  he  could,  but 
succumbed  to  the  following  mandate,  dated  New  Orleans,  June  7,  and  ad 
dressed  to  Mr.  J.  Madison  Wells,  ex-Governor  of  Louisiana  :  "  Sir, —  Gen 
eral  Flanders  has  just  informed  me  that  he  made  an  official  demand  on  you 
for  the  records  of  the  office  which  you  have  hitherto  held  as  governor  of 
Louisiana,  and  that  you  have  declined  to  turn  them  over  to  him,  disputing 
the  right  to  remove  from  office  by  me,  which  right  you  have  acknowledged 
and  urged  on  me  up  to  the  time  of  your  removal.  I  therefore  send  Brevet 
Brig. -Gen.  James  W.  Forsyth,  of  my  staff,  to  notify  you  that  he  is  sent  by 
me  to  eject  you  from  the  governor's  room  forcibly,  unless  you  consider  this 
notification  as  equivalent  to  ejection." 

Governor  Wells  denied  in  a  statement  to  the  President  the  charges  made 
against  him  by  General  Sheridan,  as  well  as  his  right  to  make  the  removal, 
and  in  his  turn  charged  the  general  with  being  actuated  by  spite  and  malice. 
It  is  needless  to  say  that  Wells  surrendered  to  this  peremptory  summons, 
and  that  Flanders  assumed  the  duties  of  the  office. 

In  a  dispatch  to  Secretary  Stanton  of  June  3d  General  Sheridan  says : 
"  I  say,  unequivocally,  that  Governor  Wells  is  a  political  trickster  and  a  dis 
honest  man.  I  have  seen  him  myself,  when  I  first  came  to  this  command, 
turn  out  all  the  Union  men  who  had  supported  the  government,  and  put  in 
their  stead  rebel  soldiers,  some  of  whom  had  not  yet  doffed  their  gray  uni 
form.  I  have  seen  him  again,  during  the  July  riot  of  1866,  skulk  away 
where  I  could  not  find  him  to  give  him  a  guard,  instead  of  coming  out  as  a 
manly  representative  of  the  state  and  joining  those  who  are  preserving  the 
peace.  I  have  watched  him  since,  and  his  conduct  has  been  as  sinuous  as 
the  mark  left  in  the  dust  by  the  movement  of  a  snake." 

In  a  letter  to  General  Grant  on  the  same  subject  General  Sheridan  said 
that  he  had  found  it  necessary  to  remove  Governor  Wells,  who  had  embar 
rassed  him  very  much  by  his  subterfuge  and  political  chicanery ;  that  this 
necessary  act  would  be  approved  by  every  class  and  shade  of  political  opin 
ion,  and  that  Wells  had  not  a  friend  who  was  an  honest  man.  In  another 
letter  he  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that,  by  the  removal  of  Wells  and  the  ap 
pointment  of  Flanders,  the  back-bone  of  the  trouble  had  been  broken. 

On  the  2ist  of  June,  Adjutant-General  Townsend  sent  a  dispatch  to 
the  commander  of  the  Fifth  district,  directing  him  not  to  close  the  registra- 


546  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

tion  in  Louisiana  before  the  ist  of  August.  An  announcement  had  been 
made  that  it  would  be  closed  at  the  end  of  June.  General  Sheridan,  in 
a  dispatch  to  General  Grant,  entered  a  sort  of  protest  against  this  order, 
and  against  the  Attorney-General's  interpretation-  of  the  law,  stating  that  it 
was  practically  opening  a  broad,  macadamized  road  for  perjury  and  fraud 
to  travel  on.  He  added:  "I  regret  that  I  should  have  to  differ  with  the 
President,  but  it  must  be  recollected  that  I  have  been  ordered  to  execute  a 
law  to  which  the  President  has  been  in  bitter  antagonism."  Still,  he  said 
he  would  extend  the  time  at  once  if  the  President's  order  were  peremptory. 
It  may  be  added  that  this  deference  to  the  authority  of  the  President,  reluc 
tant  though  it  was,  and  not  without  a  protest  against  the  necessity  of 
obedience,  preceded  the  passage  of  the  supplementary  bill  which  stripped 
the  President  of  his  constitutional  rights  as  the  chief  executive  of  the  Union, 
and  conferred  them,  in  the  premises,  upon  the  General  of  the  army.  That 
act  bears  date  July  19,  and  besides  directly  limiting  to  these  officers  author 
ity  to  interpret  the  acts,  it  declares  uthat  no  district  commander  or  member 
of  the  board  of  registration,  or  any  of  the  officers  or  appointees  acting  under 
them,  shall  be  bound  in  his  action  by  any  opinion  of  any  civil  officer  of  the 
United  States." 

General  Sheridan  informed  General  Grant  on  the  28th  of  June  that  the 
Adjutant-General  had  sent  him  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General,  constru 
ing  the  Reconstruction  acts  ;  but  he  expressed  a  doubt  as  to  whether  he  must 
regard  that  as  mandatory,  as  coming  from  the  President.  General  Grant 
replied  as  follows  :  "  Enforce  your  own  construction  of  the  military  bill  until 
ordered  to  do  otherwise.  The  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General  has  not  been 
distributed  to  the  district  commanders  in  language  or  manner  entitling  it  to 
the  form  of  an  order,  nor  can  I  suppose  that  the  President  intended  it  to  have 
such  force." 

The  numerous  classes  which  were  excluded  from  registration  by  the  mili 
tary  construction  of  the  law,  and  which  included  justices  of  the  peace,  clerks 
of  courts  and  their  deputies,  sheriffs  and  their  deputies,  constables  and  their 
deputies,  tax  collectors,  assessors,  coroners,  police  jurors,  auctioneers,  all 
who  had  served  on  the  police  force,  members  of  the  board  of  health,  and 
others  too  numerous  to  mention,  notwithstanding  that  they  had  been  declared 
by  Mr.  Stanbery,  the  Attorney-General,  to  be  entitled  to  that  privilege,  were 
thus  ruled  out.  The  books  of  registration  were  kept  open,  however,  until 
the  3ist  of  July.  The  result  of  the  registration  shows  how  rigorously  the 
military  idea  was  carried  into  effect.  The  two  races  in  Louisiana  were 
about  equal  in  numbers;  but  of  the  127,639  who  were  registered,  only 
47,732  were  white,  while  82,907  were  colored. 

An  election  was  held  on  the  27th  and  2Sth  of  September,  to  decide 
whether  a  convention  should  be  called  to  amend  the  constitution,  and  the  re 
sult  was  that  there  were  75*083  votes  cast  for  a  convention,  and  only  4,006 


GENERAL  HANCOCK  AT  NEW  ORLEANS.  547 

against  it.  Comparing  the  white  registration  with  the  census,  it  appears 
that  some  forty  thousand  whites  must  have  been  excluded  from  the  right 
of  suffrage. 

On  the  ist  of  August,  General  Sheridan  removed  twenty-two  New  Or 
leans  aldermen  and  appointed  others  in  their  stead,  assigning  as  his  reasons 
for  the  removal,  the  disturbed  condition  of  affairs  to  which  they  had  brought 
the  city,  and  the  efforts  made  by  them  to  impede  the  execution  of  the  act  of 
Congress.  During  the  same  month,  the  city  treasurer,  the  chief  of  police, 
and  the  city  attorney  were  removed  for  like  reasons,  and  others  were  ap 
pointed  in  their  stead.  In  the  parishes,  justices,  sheriffs,  and  other  officers 
were  removed  on  specific  charges  of  screening  murderers,  or  allowing  them 
to  escape  from  prison. 

On  the  1 7th  of  August,  the  President  issued  an  order  relieving  General 
Sheridan  from  the  command  of  the  Fifth  military  district,  and  directing 
that  Gen.  George  H.  Thomas  should  succeed  him.  But  it  being  repre 
sented  to  the  President  that  General  Thomas's  health  was  infirm,  and  that  the 
climate  would  not  agree  with  him,  Gen.  Winfield  S.  Hancock  was  assigned 
to  the  command  of  the  Fifth  district.  During  the  interim,  General  Sheri 
dan  having  been  sent  to  Fort  Leavenworth  in  command  of  the  Department  of 
Missouri,  General  Griffin,  commander  of  the  sub-district  of  Texas,  was  ap 
pointed  temporary  commander  of  the  Fifth  military  district.  He,  however, 
died  of  yellow  fever,  and  was  succeeded  by  Maj.-Gen.  Joseph  A.  Mower. 

It  having  been  represented  to  General  Mower  that  political  organizations, 
composed  mostly  of  negroes,  were  in  the  practice  of  assembling  in  armed 
bands  under  military  leaders,  greatly  to  the  annoyance  of  peaceful  people, 
that  officer  issued  a  general  order  that  such  practices  should  be  discon 
tinued.  He  also  removed  the  lieutenant-governor,  the  secretary  of  state,  the 
treasurer,  the  auditor  of  public  accounts,  and  many  other  officers,  as  "im 
pediments  to  reconstruction,"  and  appointed  others  in  their  places.  The 
order  on  that  subject  was  issued  on  the  2ist  of  November,  1867,  but  was 
suspended  by  order  of  General  Grant. 

General  Hancock  arrived  in  New  Orleans  on  the  2$th  of  November, 
1867,  and  on  the  next  day  announced  his  assumption  of  the  command  of 
the  Fifth  district,  in  a  special  order.  The  second  paragraph  of  this  order 
reads  as  follows : 

"  The  general  commanding  is  gratified  to  learn  that  peace  and  quiet  reign 
in  this  department,  and  it  will  be  his  purpose  to  preserve  this  condition  of 
things.  As  a  means  to  this  great  end  he  regards  the  maintenance  of  the  civil 
authorities  in  the  faithful  execution  of  the  laws  as  the  most  efficient  under 
existing  circumstances.  In  war  it  is  indispensable  to  repel  force  by  force, 
and  to  overthrow  and  destroy  opposition  to  lawful  authority ;  but  when  in 
surrectionary  force  has  been  overthrown,  peace  established,  and  the  civil 
authorities  are  ready  and  willing  to  perform  their  duties,  the  military  power 


548  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

should  cease  to  lead,  and  the  civil  administration  resume  its  natural  and 
rightful  dominion.  Solemnly  impressed  with  these  views,  the  general  an 
nounces  that  the  great  principles  of  American  liberty  still  are  the  lawful 
inheritance  of  this  people,  and  ever  should  be.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury, 
the  habeas  corpus,  the  liberty  of  the  press,  the  freedom  of  speech,  and  the 
natural  rights  of  persons  and  the  rights  of  property  must  be  preserved. 
Free  institutions,  while  they  are  essential  to  the  prosperity  and  happiness  of 
the  people,  always  furnish  the  strongest  inducements  to  peace  and  order. 
Crimes  and  offenses  committed  in  this  district  must  be  referred  to  the  con 
sideration  and  judgment  of  the  regular  civil  authorities,  and  these  tribunals 
will  be  supported  in  their  lawful  jurisdiction.  Should  there  be  violations  of 
existing  laws  which  are  not  inquired  into  by  the  civil  magistrates,  or  should 
failures  in  the  administration  of  justice  by  the  courts  be  complained  of,  the 
cases  will  be  reported  to  these  headquarters,  when  such  orders  will  be  made 
as  may  be  deemed  necessary.  While  the  general  thus  indicates  his  purpose 
to  respect  the  liberties  of  the  people,  he  wishes  all  to  understand  that  armed 
insurrections  or  forcible  resistance  to  the  laws  will  be  instantly  suppressed 
by  arms." 

The  principal  departure  of  General  Hancock  from  the  policy  pursued  by 
his  predecessors  related  to  the  organization  of  juries.  General  Sheridan  had 
issued  an  order  requiring  the  state  authorities  to  make  no  distinction  as  to 
race  or  color  in  the  organization  of  juries.  General  Hancock  superseded 
this  order  by  one  remanding  the  subject  to  the  state  authorities  and  the  civil 
courts,  and  in  order  to  avoid  the  annoyance  of  frequent  applications  to  him 
for  his  intervention  in  private  suits  and  controversies,  he  issued  an  order  de 
claring  that  "the  administration  of  civil  justice  appertains  to  the  regular 
courts.  The  rights  of  litigants  do  not  depend  on  the  views  of  the  general. 
They  are  to  be  adjudged  and  settled  according  to  the  laws.  Arbitrary  power, 
such  as  he  has  been  urged  to  assume,  has  no  existence  here.  It  is  not  found 
in  the  laws  of  Louisiana  or  Texas.  It  cannot  be  derived  from  any  act  or  acts 
of  Congress.  It  is  restrained  by  the  Constitution."  General  Hancock  rein 
stated  several  of  the  state  officers  who  had  been  removed  by  General  Mower, 
and  that  officer  was  himself  relieved  from  his  command  in  the  district. 

The  state  convention  met  on  the  23d  of  November,  1867,  and  at  the  end 
of  a  month  had  completed  a  draft  of  a  constitution,  which  was  adopted 
March  2,  1868.  A  tax  on  property  of  one  mill  per  centum  was  authorized 
for  the  purpose  of  paying  the  members  and  defraying  the  expenses  of  the 
convention.  The  delegates  to  the  convention  were  nearly  all  Republicans, 
and  about  half  of  them,  colored.  The  proceedings  of  the  convention  as 
published  convey  no  information  in  regard  to  the  party  relations  of  mem 
bers,  except  what  may  be  inferred  from  their  votes  and  remarks ;  but  it  is 
said  that  twenty  colored  men  voted  for  and  twenty  against  the  disfranchising 
clause.  The  vote  in  the  convention  upon  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  as 


Q 


GENERAL  HANCOCK  REMOVES  MUNICIPAL  OFFICERS  549 

a  whole  was — yeas. 71,  nays  6.  Several  delegates  signed  under  protest, 
among  them  a  colored  man,  Thomas  W.  Martin,  of  Jefferson  Parish,  who 
objected  to  the  prescriptive  article.  The  constitution  was  ratified  by  the 
people  on  the  i7th  and  i8th  of  August,  by  a  vote  of  66,152  for  and  48,729 
against,  the  majority  being  17,413. 

Mild  and  liberal  as  had  been  the  administration  of  General  Hancock,  he 
found  it  necessary  to  remove  certain  officials,  and  in  this  he  was  not  sustained 
by  General  Grant.  William  Baker,  the  street  commissioner,  was  removed 
on  charges  of  malfeasance  in  office,  after  an  investigation ;  and  Arthur  Gus- 
tinel,  recorder  for  the  second  district,  was  removed  in  consequence  of  a  de 
cision  of  the  supreme  court  declaring  him  ineligible.  The  city  council  im 
mediately  adopted  a  resolution  ordering  an  election  of  a  recorder,  notwith 
standing  that  it  was  reminded  of  General  Sheridan's  order  forbidding  elec 
tions  not  specially  authorized  by  the  commanding  general.  In  consequence 
of  this  action  of  the  council,  General  Hancock  immediately  removed  all  the 
members  who  had  voted  for  the  measure.  There  were  nine  of  them,  seven 
being  colored,  and  two  white.  He  telegraphed  the  facts  to  General  Grant, 
who  replied,  directing  General  Hancock  to  suspend  his  orders  of  removal, 
and  to  report  the  facts  more  fully.  General  Hancock,  in  his  answer,  in 
sisted  that  all  essential  facts  were  furnished  in  the  dispatch,  and  that  he  re 
garded  what  he  had  done  as  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  the  authority 
and  dignity  of  his  office ;  and  he  intimated  a  wish  to  be  recalled  unless  he 
were  sustained.  But  the  result  was  that  an  order  came  from  the  general- 
in-chief  directing  that  the  council  be  restored  ;  and,  later  on,  the  street  com 
missioner  was  reinstated.  General  Hancock  thereupon  asked  to  be  relieved 
from  his  command.  He  was  accordingly  relieved,  and  was  succeeded  by 
Gen.  J.  J.  Reynolds  on  the  iSth  of  March,  who  in  a  few  days  was  suc 
ceeded  by  Brevet  Maj.-Gen.  R.  C.  Buchanan.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
this  interposition  from  headquarters  in  favor  of  the  municipal  officials  was 
due  to  their  political  character  and  complexion.  The  time  had  passed  by 
when  black  men  had  no  rights  which  white  men  were  bound  to  respect ; 
and  the  reverse  rule  seemed  to  be  coming  into  use. 

In  general  terms  the  new  constitution  conferred  the  right  of  suffrage  on 
all  male  persons  twenty-one  years  old,  native  and  naturalized,  except  those 
specially  excepted.  These  were  (as  stated  in  Article  XCIX.) ,  all  persons  con 
victed  of  treason,  forgery,  bribery,  or  other  crime  punishable  by  imprison 
ment  in  the  penitentiary,  and  persons  under  interdiction  ;  persons  who  were 
estopped  from  claiming  the  right  of  suffrage  by  having  abjured  their  alle 
giance  to  the  United  States  Government  or  by  having  notoriously  levied  war 
against  it,  or  by  having  adhered  to  its  enemies  ;  those  who  had  held  office, 
civil  or  military,  for  one  year  or  more  under  the  Confederacy ;  those  who 
had  registered  themselves  as  enemies  of  the  United  States ;  those  who  had 
acted  as  leaders  of  guerrilla  bands  during  the  late  rebellion ;  those  who,  in 


550  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  advocacy  of  treason,  had  written  or  published  newspaper  articles  or 
preached  sermons  during  the  late  rebellion ;  and  those  who  had  voted  for 
and  signed  an  ordinance  of  secession  in  any  state.  No  person  included  in 
these  exceptions  should  either  vote  or  hold  office  until  he  had  relieved 
himself  by  voluntarily  writing  and  signing  a  certificate  containing  an  ac 
knowledgment  that  the  late  rebellion  was  morally  and  politically  wrong, 
and  that  he  regretted  any  aid  and  comfort  he  had  given  it.  No  person, 
however,  who,  prior  to  the  ist  of  January,  1868,  had  favored  the  execution 
of  the  Reconstruction  acts,  and  had  openly  assisted  the  loyal  men  of  the 
state  in  their  efforts  to  restore  Louisiana  to  her  position  in  the  Union,  was  to 
be  held  included  among  those  disfranchised  classes. 

Pending  the  work  of  reconstruction,  the  state  revenue  fell  far  short  of 
the  expenditures.  The  state  auditor  informed  General  Hancock  in  Decem 
ber  that,  unless  something  were  done,  the  wheels  of  government  would  stop, 
and  that  the  present  indebtedness  of  the  state  was  such  that,  under  the 
revenue  laws,  the  debt  could  not  be  paid.  The  outstanding  claims  of  the 
treasury  at  the  end  of  1867  were  $1,313,000  in  excess  of  the  receipts.  In 
view  of  the  emergency,  the  general  issued  an  order,  not  as  rigidly  respect 
ful  to  the  civil  government  (though  in  compliance  with  the  wish  of  the  gov 
ernment)  as  the  tone  of  his  order  or  proclamation  announcing  his  assump 
tion  of  the  command  might  have  led  one  to  expect ;  but  it  was  a  case  of 
necessity,  no  doubt ;  and  to  meet  it  he  extended  the  force  of  a  legislative  act 
in  regard  to  the  finances  to  the  year  1868,  although  it  was  limited  in  terms  to 
the  year  1867.  This  act  of  military  legislation  was  accompanied  by  other 
regulations  in  regard  to  the  collection  and  disbursement  of  the  revenue. 
This  order  was  complained  of  by  the  radicals  on  the  ground  that  it  was  the 
enactment  by  the  military  of  laws  for  a  down-trodden  and  oppressed  peo 
ple  ;  and  a  "  respectful  but  solemn  protest"  to  this  effect  was  introduced  in 
the  convention  in  the  form  of  resolutions,  but  it  was  laid  on  the  table. 
Another  ground  of  opposition  was  that  the  order  was  in  the  interest  of  the 
obnoxious  state  legislature  which  was  known  to  be  "  hostile  to  a  loyal  recon 
struction  of  the  government."  The  State  of  Louisiana  was  re-admitted  to 
representation  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  22,  1868,  upon  the  same  con 
ditions  as  those  imposed  in  respect  to  the  states  of  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Alabama,  and  Florida. 

The  vote  at  the  Presidential  and  congressional  elections  in  Louisiana  in 
November,  1868,  presents  quite  a  contrast  to  that  at  the  ratification  of  the 
constitution  and  the  election  of  state  officers  in  April.  In  the  state  election 
in  April,  the  Republicans  had  it  all  their  own  way,  as  has  been  stated.  The 
constitution  was  ratified  by  a  majority  which  is  differently  stated  at  from 
12,000  to  17,000.  Henry  Clay  Warmoth,  Republican,  was  elected  gov 
ernor  by  above  26,000,  over  Talliaferro,  Democrat.  The  legislature  consisted 
of  twenty  Republican  senators  to  sixteen  Democrats,  and  fifty-six  Republi- 


THE  DEMOCRATS  CARRY  THE  STATE.  551 

can  members  of  the  house  to  forty-five  Democrats  —  there  being  on  joint 
ballot  seventy-six  Republicans  and  sixty-one  Democrats.  This  is  the  state 
ment  of  the  American  Annual  Encyclopedia.  The  Tribune  Almanac 
makes  the  Republican  majority  much  greater  —  viz.  :  twenty-four  senators 
and  seventy-five  representatives,  or  ninety-nine  on  joint  ballot,  against  twelve 
Democratic  senators  and  twenty-six  representatives,  or  thirty-eight  on  joint 
ballot.  But  in  November,  the  Democrats  swept  the  state  by  overwhelming 
majorities,  notwithstanding  the  candidacy  of  General  Grant.  He  was  beaten 
by  Mr.  Seymour,  by  a  majority  of  15,278  in  a  total  vote  of  71,100,  according 
to  the  report  of  the  state  board  of  canvassers  ;  but  as  this  statement  is  based 
on  the  rejection  of  returns  from  sixteen  parishes,  it  is  far  short  of  the  whole 
truth.  The  Tribune  Almanac  gives  unofficial  returns  from  these  parishes, 
and  presents  a  total  of  113,388  votes  for  President,  of  which  General  Grant 
received  33,263,  and  Mr.  Seymour  80,225,  showing  a  Democratic  majority 
of  46, 95  2. 

These  apparently  sudden  revolutions  in  public  sentiment  which  swept  over 
the  South  first  in  one  direction  and  then  in  another,  like  the  cyclones  that 
from  time  to  time  devastate  the  western  country,  were  peculiar  to  the  era  of 
reconstruction,  and  they  indicate  the  degree  of  pressure,  for  the  time,  of  the 
heavy  hand  of  the  military  authority. 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  returning  board  threw  out  the  returns  of  the 
votes  in  several  parishes  ;  and  there  seems  to  have  been  good  reason  therefor. 
For  instance,  in  the  Parish  of  Bienville,  where  the  colored  population  was 
5,047  and  the  white  5,589,  there  was  but  one  vote  cast  for  General  Grant, 
against  1,385  cast  for  Seymour.  In  Hosier  Parish,  where  the  colored  pop 
ulation  was  9,170  and  the  white  3,505,  Grant  got  but  one  vote,  and  Seymour 
1,635.  In  Caddo  Parish,  where  the  colored  population  was  15,799  and  the 
white  5, 913,  Grant  got  but  one  vote  and  Seymour  2,895.  In  De  Soto  Par 
ish,  with  a  colored  population  of  9,855,  St.  Laundry  Parish,  with  a  colored 
population  of  11,694,  and  several  other  parishes  with  large  negro  popu 
lations,  Grant  received  no  votes  at  all.  In  the  twenty-four  parishes  of  the 
state,  with  an  aggregate  colored  population  of.  182,169  and  an  aggregate 
white  population  of  253,982,  General  Grant  got  but  3,701  votes,  while  Mr. 
Seymour  got  58,373.  And  yet  the  fact  is  indisputable  that  fully  nine- 
teen-twentieths  of  the  colored  men  were  unequivocally  and  earnestly  in 
favor  of  Grant,  and  that  the  whites  were  for  Seymour  in  about  the  same 
proportion.  The  strange  results  here  set  forth  are  partially  explained  in 
the  report  of  a  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives  constituted  to 
investigate  the  condition  of  the  South.  The  report  says : 

4 'The  testimony  shows  that  over  two  thousand  persons  were  killed, 
wounded,  and  otherwise  injured  in  Louisiana  within  a  few  weeks  prior  to 
the  Presidential  election  in  November,  1872  ;  that  half  the  state  was  overrun 
by  violence ;  and  that  midnight  raids,  secret  murders,  and  open  riot  kept 


552  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  people  in  constant  terror  until  the  Republicans  surrendered  all  claims. 
.  .  .  But  the  most  remarkable  case  is  that  of  St.  Laundry,  a  planting 
parish  on  the  river  Teche.  Here  the  Republicans  had  a  registered  majority 
of  1,071  votes.  In  the  spring  of  1868  they  carried  the  parish  by  678.  In 
the  fall  they  gave  Grant  no  vote, —  not  one, —  while  the  Democrats  cast  4,787, 
the  full  vote  of  the  parish,  for  Seymour  and  Blair.  Here  occurred  one  of  the 
bloodiest  riots  on  record,  in  which  the  Ku-Klux  killed  and  wounded  over  two 
hundred  Republicans,  hunting  and  chasing  them  for  two  days  and  nights 
through  fields  and  swamps.  Thirteen  captives  were  taken  from  the  jail  and 
shot.  A  pile  of  twenty-five  dead  bodies  was  found  half-buried  in  the  woods. 
Having  conquered  the  Republicans  and  killed  and  driven  off  the  white 
leaders,  the  Ku-Klux  captured  the  masses,  marked  them  with  badges  of  red 
flannel,  enrolled  them  in  clubs,  led  them  to  the  polls,  made  them  vote  the 
Democratic  ticket,  and  then  gave  them  certificates  of  the  fact." 

It  is  probable  that  the  statement  is  a  good  deal  exaggerated,  especially  as 
to  the  number  killed  ;  but  the  failure  of  the  negroes  to  vote  can  be  explained 
only  on  the  theory  that  a  reign  of  terror  existed.  The  heavy  majorities  of 
the  Republicans  in  the  spring  of  1868  were  due  to  two  causes:  first,  to  the 
relatively  small  number  of  the  white  people  who  were  allowed  to  register  ; 
and,  secondly,  to  the  presence  of  United  States  troops.  The  withdrawal  of 
the  troops  and  the  cessation  of  martial  law  revealed  the  latent  superiority  of 
the  whites.  It  then  became  apparent  that  the  government  which  Congress 
had  set  up  —  a  government  carried  on  by  the  colored  people  and  supported 
by  the  bayonet — could  not  stand  when  the  bayonet  was  withdrawn.  The 
enormous  Democratic  vote  in  the  Presidential  and  congressional  elections  in 
November  showed  either  that  thousands  of  unregistered  men  were  allowed 
to  vote,  or  that  the  negroes  were  drafted  into  the  service  of  the  Democratic 
party  and  compelled  to  vote  against  their  wishes. 

The  report  of  the  House  Committee  of  Elections  in  the  contested  election 
case  of  Hunt  vs.  Sheldon,  gives  an  explanation  of  the  falling  off  in  the  Re 
publican  vote.  It  tells  of  the  social  ostracism  of  the  few  white  Republicans 
in  the  state ;  the  threat  of  withdrawing  employment  from  the  Republican 
negroes;  and  the  operations  of  the  "Knights  of  the  White  Camellia,"  an 
armed  and  oath-bound  society  which  embraced  nearly  all  the  Democrats  in 
Louisiana,  and  which  General  Rousseau,  who  commanded  the  department, 
pronounced  too  formidable  for  his  command  to  cope  with,  advising  the  Re 
publican  leaders,  therefore,  to  abandon  the  campaign.  It  tells  how  Democratic 
clubs  were  formed  into  which  colored  men  were  urgently  invited  to  enter, 
with  the  promise  of  receiving  "protection  papers,"  which  would  bring  pro 
tection,  lands,  security,  and  peace ;  and  how  Democratic  barbecues  were 
held,  at  which  food  and  drink  were  bountifully  provided  and  public  questions 
discussed  by  men  of  both  colors,  and  where  active  young  Democrats  played 
the  part  of  waiters,  serving  the  colored  people  in  preference  to  the  whites. 


DIPLOMATS  &  STATESMEN 


CORRUPTION  IN  THE  STATE  LEGISLATURE.  553 


This  was,  to  say  the  least,  a  blending  of  the  suaviter  in  modo  with 
titer  in  re.  It  was,  according  to  this  report,  only  when  these  coercive  and 
seductive  methods  failed  to  win  over  the  colored  men  that  the  rioting  and 
murdering  began.  It  is  due  to  Governor  Warmoth  to  say  that  he  attributed 
his  inability  to  preserve  the  peace  to  the  act  of  Congress  which  prohibited 
the  organization  of  the  militia.  But  nothing  is  more  probable  than  that  an 
exercise  of  the  authority  which  Congress  unconstitutionally  stripped  him  of 
would  have  only  aggravated  the  evil,  for  his  reliance  must  have  been  on  the 
colored  men,  and  to  arm  that  class  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  whites  in 
order  would  have  provoked  sanguinary  conflicts  in  which  the  governor  and 
his  sable  troops  would  have  been  badly  worsted. 

The  legislature  met  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1869.  Governor  War- 
moth's  message  to  it  was  very  conciliatory,  expressing  the  hope  that  the 
storms  of  the  past  had  died  away  forever.  A  social  equality  bill  was  passed, 
requiring  all  hotels  and  places  of  public  entertainment  and  amusement  to 
admit  all  persons,  without  regard  to  race  or  color.  Also  a  school  bill,  which 
required  that  all  schools,  of  whatever  grade,  depending  on  the  public  for  sup 
port,  should  be  open  to  all  pupils,  of  whatever  race.  The  legislature,  at  the 
same  session,  chartered  two  companies  which  were  denounced  as  corrupt 
monopolies  —  the  Ship  Canal  Company  and  the  Slaughter  House  Company. 

At  the  following  session  of  the  legislature  so  many  financial  schemes 
were  introduced  that  a  public  meeting  was  held  in  New  Orleans,  in  Jan 
uary,  1870,  to  protest  against  them.  It  was  stated  that  the  measures  in  ques 
tion  were  certain  to  increase  the  burdens  of  the  people,  and  to  depreciate  the 
bonds  and  ruin  the  credit  of  the  state  ;  that  the  city  debt  was  $17,000,000, 
and  the  state  debt  $28,000,000,  and  that  the  latter  would,  if  the  schemes  on 
foot  were  carried  through  the  legislature,  be  increased  to  $54,000,000. 
The  co-operation  of  Governor  Warmoth  was  solicited,  in  efforts  to  arrest 
these  corrupt  schemes.  His  reply  was  to  the  effect  that  a  great  many  mem 
bers  of  the  legislature  were  ignorant  and  easily  influenced  by  lobbyists,  and 
that  the  men  of  standing  in  the  community  ought  to  assist  him  in  restrain 
ing  them  from  running  into  the  excesses  complained  of.  He  also  reminded 
the  property-holders  and  capitalists  who  took  part  in  the  public  meeting  that 
many  of  the  bills  which  the  legislature  was  charged  with  passing  corruptly 
were  for  the  aggrandizement  of  individuals  and  corporations  representing 
their  u  very  best  people."  Their  bank  presidents  and  the  best  people  of 
New  Orleans  were,  he  said,  "  crowding  the  lobbies  of  the  legislature,  con 
tinually  whispering  into  these  men's  ears,  bribes."  How  was  the  state  to  be 
defended,  he  asked,  against  the  interposition  of  these  people  who  were 
potent  in  their  influence  in  the  community.  It  is  apparent  that  Governor 
Warmoth  understood  the  term  "best  people"  to  be  synonymous  with  the 
term  "  richest  people."  He  instanced  the  case  of  the  five-million  bond  bill 
(to  take  up  the  city  notes)  which  he  had  vetoed,  which  had  been  passed  in 
35 


554  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  house  over  his  veto,  through  the  lobbying  and  bribes  of  all  the  prominent 
brokers  of  the  city,  and  which  had  been  only  defeated  in  the  senate  through 
his  exposure  of  the  fact  that  an  order  for  $50,000  had  been  laid,  as  a  bribe, 
on  the  desk  of  his  own  secretary.  He  also  said  that  another  senator  of  New 
Orleans  had  offered  him  a  bribe  of  $50,000  and  a  share  of  profits  for  his 
signature  to  the  Nicolson  Pavement  bill. 

Grave  charges  of  corruption  were  made  against  Governor  Warmoth 
himself;  but  in  all  these  transactions  he  appears  on  the  side  of  an  honest 
administration  of  state  affairs.  A  bitter  quarrel  arose  between  him  and  the 
state  auditor,  G.  M.  Wickliffe,  whom  he  accused  of  extortion  and  corrup 
tion.  Fourteen  indictments  were  found  against  Wickliffe,  and  the  governor 
suspended  him.  This  proceeding,  however,  was  not  sanctioned  by  the 
courts,  and  Wickliffe  wras  temporarily  restored  to  office.  The  governor 
then  laid  the  charges  against  Wickliffe  before  the  house  of  representatives,  by 
which  body  he  was  impeached.  He  was  tried  before  the  senate  as  a  high 
court  of  impeachment  in  1870,  and  was  convicted. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  Democrats  gave  a  cordial  invitation 
to  the  colored  people  to  co-operate  with  them  on  a  liberal  declaration  of 
principles,  the  election  in  November,  1870,  resulted  in  a  solid  Republican 
triumph.  The  candidates  for  auditor  and  treasurer  had  majorities  of  about 
twenty-five  thousand  ;  and  the  entire  delegation  to  Congress  was  Republican. 
General  Grant  was  President ;  and  none  but  registered  Democratic  votes 
could  be  polled.  Besides,  no  attempt  at  intimidation  was  made.  The  name 
of  President  Grant  was  sufficient  to  repress  all  irregular  methods  of  election 
eering  on  the  part  of  the  Democrats.  At  the  same  election,  the  people  rati 
fied  two  important  amendments  to  the  state  constitution.  One  was  the  re 
peal  of  the  ninety-ninth  article,  wrhich  disfranchised  a  large  class  of  citizens. 
The  other  was  a  limitation  of  the  state  debt  to  $25,000,000.  The  repeal  of 
the  prescriptive  clause  gave  the  right  of  suffrage  to  all  male  citizens  twenty- 
one  years  of  age.  Governor  Warmoth,  who  had  recommended  the  abroga 
tion  of  that  clause,  congratulated  the  legislature  and  people  upon  its  being 
expunged  from  the  constitution. 

The  Republicans,  however,  quarreled  among  themselves  ;  and  the  fac 
tions  soon  became  more  embittered  against  each  other  than  against  their  com 
mon  enemy,  the  Democrats.  This  quarrel  led  to  a  most  extraordinary  con 
dition  of  things,  in  which  Governor  Warmoth  and  his  friends  were  arrayed 
against  the  leading  Federal  officials :  namely,  Packard,  the  United  States 
marshal,  Casey,  the  collector  of  the  port  (a  brother-in-law  of  President 
Grant),  Lowell,  the  postmaster,  and  two  deputy  custom-house  officers, 
named  Herwig  and  Carter.  There  was  a  struggle  for  the  control  of  the  Re 
publican  state  convention  ;  but  the  Federal  office-holders  carried  the  day  by 
having  the  convention  meet  in  the  United  States  court  room,  in  the  custom 
house,  which  was  guarded  by  United  States  troops,  and  by  some  hundreds 


BAYONETS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  COURT  ROOM.  555 

of  deputy  United  States  marshals.  Warmoth  -went  there,  in  company  with 
ninety -five  other  delegates,  his  adherents,  and  found,  he  said,  "the  main 
entrance  and  the  gates  closed,  barred  and  bolted,  and  guarded  by  a  large 
force  of  armed  men,  colored  and  white,  mostly  employes  in  the  custom  house 
and  letter-carriers  of  the  post-office,  called  deputy  United  States  marshals." 
On  the  second  floor  of  the  building  in  which  the  court  room  was  situated 
they  were  "  confronted  by  a  line  of  United  States  troops  armed  with  muskets 
•with  bayonets  fixed  —  some  one  hundred  and  ten  men  in  all."  They  were 
refused  admission  to  the  room  ;  and  so  Warmoth  and  his  fellow-delegates 
retired,  and  held  a  convention  of  their  own. 

There  was  also  a  struggle  over  the  office  of  president  of  the  senate  —  the 
lieutenant-governor,  Dunn,  a  colored  man,  having  died  in  November,  1871. 
The  governor,  a  few  days  after  Dunn's  death,  summoned  the  senators  to  meet 
in  extra  session  on  the  6th  of  December,  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  pre 
siding  officer.  A  majority  of  the  senators  were  of  the  governor's  party, 
while  a  majority  of  the  house  belonged  to  the  custom-house  faction,  and 
meditated  an  impeachment  of  Warmoth.  As,  in  case  of  the  governor's  re 
moval,  the  president  of  the  senate  would  succeed  him  in  the  executive  office, 
it  was  important  to  secure  that  office  ;  and  Warmoth  managed,  not  without 
suspicion  of  purchasing  at  least  one  vote,  to  have  his  candidate,  Pinchback, 
a  colored  man,  chosen.  A  proceeding  in  the  sixth  circuit  court  revealed  the 
fact  that  a  tin  box  purporting  to  contain  $15,000,  had  been  deposited  in  the 
Louisiana  Savings  Bank,  with  a  written  agreement  that  the  money  was  to  be 
delivered  to  a  certain  Senator  Lewis,  in  consideration  of  his  voting  for  Pinch- 
back.  Lewis  was,  however,  cheated  out  of  his  reward,  the  contents  of  the 
box  having  been  delivered,  without  his  knowledge,  to  one  Dr.  Southworth, 
another  political  adventurer  of  that  era.  There  is  little  doubt  that  Governor 
Warmoth  was  cognizant  of  and  a  party  to  the  bribery,  as  well  as  being  a 
party  to  the  further  baseness  of  defrauding  Lewis  of  the  bribe. 

A  further  bone  of  contention  between  the  two  factions  was  the  speaker- 
ship  of  the  house.  George  W.  Carter,  an  officer  in  the  custom  house,  had 
been  elected  speaker  at  the  session  preceding  that  which  opened  on  the  ist 
of  January,  1872.  On  the  second  day  of  this  latter  session  a  resolution  of 
confidence  in  him  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  forty-nine  to  forty-five.  But  the 
next  day  the  house  refused  to  approve  the  journal,  by  a  vote  of  forty-nine  to 
forty-six.  This  was  a  test  vote,  and  showed  that  the  Carter  party  was  in  a 
minority.  Great  confusion  followed.  A  motion  to  declare  the  speaker's 
chair  vacant  was  made  and  declared  out  of  order.  Carter  and  his  friends 
saw  that  they  were  in  a  minority  ;  and  Carter,  it  is  asserted  by  the  governor's 
friends,  promised  that,  if  the  house  would  adjourn,  he  would  resign  the  next 
day.  The  house  did  adjourn ;  but,  instead  of  Carter  resigning,  at  noon  the 
next  day  the  governor,  lieutenant-governor,  four  senators,  and  eighteen 
members  of  the  house,  all  opponents  of  the  custom-house  faction,  were 


556  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

arrested  by  United  States  deputy  marshals,  on  writs  issued  by  United  States 
Commissioner  Woolfley,  who  had  been  a  clerk  under  Marshal  Packard,  on 
a  charge  of  conspiracy  to  resist  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States.  They  were  soon,  however,  released  on  bail.  This  proceeding,  per 
fectly  outrageous  in  its  character,  accomplished  its  purpose  for  the  moment. 
The  Warmoth  members  of  the  house  were  thrown  into  temporary  confusion, 
and  nearly  all  of  them  left  the  hall  —  their  withdrawal  leaving  the  house 
without  a  quorum.  On  the  fourth  day,  with  only  fifty-one  members  present 
(claimed  to  be  less  than  a  quorum) ,  the  Carter  party  in  a  most  summary 
manner  unseated  seven  of  the  Warmoth  men,  giving  their  places  to  anti- 
Warmoth  men.  The  Carterites  were  thus  once  more  placed  in  the  majority. 
As  to  the  senate,  it  was  the  purpose  of  Packard,  Casey,  and  their  friends  to 
prevent  a  quorum  appearing ;  and  so  fifteen  of  the  senators  who  belonged  to 
that  faction  were  secreted  in  the  custom  house  for  some  time,  and  were  then 
placed  on  board  the  United  States  revenue  cutter,  Wilderness,  where  they 
were  kept  from  Monday  night  till  the  following  Friday,  being  furnished  with 
provisions,  wine,  and  whiskey. 

The  legislature  having,  in  this  condition  of  things,  adjourned  over,  War- 
moth  immediately,  without  giving  notice  to  his  enemies,  issued  a  call  for  his 
legislature  to  meet  the  same  day  at  4.30  o'clock.  The  call,  or  proclamation, 
was  kept  a  profound  secret ;  and  the  legislature,  Warmoth's  portion  of  it, 
was  in  session  before  Carter's  followers  were  made  aware  of  it.  This  pro 
cedure  was,  of  course,  wholly  illegal ;  but  it  was  a  less  flagrant  outrage  upon 
constitutional  liberty  than  the  other  faction  had  been  guilty  of.  There  being 
no  quorum  in  the  senate,  the  Warmoth  senators  adjourned.  In  the  house, 
the  Warmoth  men  mustered  sixty-five  members,  a  constitutional  majority, 
and  they  proceeded  at  once  to  undo  the  work  of  the  Carter-Packard  faction. 
The  office  of  speaker  was  declared  vacant,  and  O.  H.  Brewster  was  elected 
to  fill  the  vacancy.  Carter  was  voted  out  of  the  speakership  by  a  unanimous 
vote,  and  was  then  expelled  from  the  house  by  a  vote  of  forty-nine  to  five. 
The  house  then  adjourned  until  the  next  day. 

In  the  meantime,  a  large  number  of  policemen  were  appointed  to  guard 
the  Mechanics'  Institute,  which  was  used  as  the  state  capitol,  and  to  protect 
the  governor  and  party.  The  police  were  heavily  armed.  Carter  attempted 
to  enter  the  building,  but  the  police,  acting  under  orders,  excluded  him.  He 
and  his  friends  then  attempted  to  organize  as  a  house  in  another  hall ;  but, 
failing  to  obtain  a  quorum,  most  of  his  friends  joined  the  majority  in  the 
Mechanics'  Institute. 

Pending  these  anarchical  proceedings,  the  administration  at  Washington, 
in  deference  to  public  sentiment,  was  constrained  to  order  the  commander  of 
the  Wilderness  to  "unload" — to  borrow  the  expressive  phrase  of  General 
Grant,  used  by  him  on  another  occasion.  The  cutter  was  accordingly 
brought  to  the  city,  and  the  recusant  senators  disembarked.  They,  how- 


THE  CUSTOM-HOUSE  FACTION  DEFEATED.  557 

ever,  refused  to  join  the  senate  while  there  was  an  armed  force  around  the 
capitol.  Hatred  of  Warmoth  gave  them  the  sympathy  of  the  people  of  New 
Orleans ;  and  on  the  2oth,  Carter  was  emboldened  to  issue  a  proclamation 
declaring  his  intention  to  take  forcible  possession  of  the  state  capitol,  and 
inviting  the  citizens  to  join  him.  He  accordingly  raised  several  thousand 
men  and  took  the  field  for  the  purpose  of  executing  his  threat ;  but  the  inter 
position  of  General  Emory,  the  United  States  military  commander,  who  had 
received  orders  from  Washington  to  prevent  a  conflict,  put  a  stop  to  the 
enterprise. 

Under  these  depressing  influences  the  spirit  of  the  custom-house  faction 
gave  way,  and  the  standard  of  rebellion  against  the  state  government  was 
abandoned.  On  the  same  day,  January  22,  which  was  marked  by  the  defeat 
or  abandonment  of  Carter's  military  venture,  the  absent  senators  joined 
those  of  the  \Varmoth  faction  ;  and  when  it  was  declared,  by  a  vote  of 
seventeen  to  sixteen,  that  the  election  of  Pinchback  in  December,  1871,  at 
the  extra  session  of  the  senate  was  legal  and  valid,  some  of  the  followers  of 
Carter  belonging  to  the  house  of  representatives  also  joined  that  body, 
thus  establishing  an  ample  quorum,  with  a  large  Warmoth  majority.  The 
expulsion  of  Carter  and  the  election  of  Brewster  as  speaker  were  promptly 
confirmed. 

These  extraordinary  and  exciting  events,  marking  and  growing  out  of  the 
struggle  between  two  reckless  factions  for  the  control  of  the  state  government 
and  for  the  opportunities  of  plunder  which  such  control  could  give,  are  set 
forth  in  great  detail  in  the  testimony  taken  by  a  select  committee  of  the  Fed 
eral  House  of  Representatives,  appointed  under  a  resolution  of  the  i5th  of 
January,  1872,  "  to  inquire  into  the  origin  and  character  of  the  difficulties 
which  have  arisen  between  the  government  and  the  officials  of  the  State  of 
Louisiana  and  the  United  States  officials  in  said  state."  The  committee  con 
sisted  of  Glenni  W.  Scofield,  of  Pennsylvania,  George  W.  McCrary,  of  Wis 
consin,  H.  Boardman  Smith,  of  New- York,  R.  Milton  Speer,  of  Georgia, 
and  Stevenson  Archer,  of  Maryland.  The  two  first-named  members  con 
curred  in  making  a  report  indicating  that  the  parties  to  the  controversy  were 
actuated  by  none  but  honorable  motives,  and  that  their  violations  of  law  were 
merely  the  offspring  of  excessive  zeal  for  liberty.  They  did  not  even  hint 
that  the  Federal  officials  involved  in  the  attempt  to  overthrow  the  state  gov 
ernment  deserved  rebuke,  if  not  removal ;  and  they  recommended  no  action 
on  the  part  of  Congress.  Mr.  H.  Boardman  Smith  made  a  more  elaborate 
report,  directed  principally  to  the  vindication  of  the  wisdom  of  Congress  in 
passing  the  Reconstruction  acts,  and  to  the  defense  of  the  course  pursued  by 
the  custom-house  faction.  But  the  report  made  by  the  two  Democratic 
members  of  the  committee,  Messrs.  Speer  and  Archer,  was  a  fair  and  thor 
ough  analysis  of  the  occurrences  ;  and  it  is  chiefly  from  it  that  the  foregoing 
summary  has  been  made  up.  It  concluded  thus  :  "  The  committee  has  no 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

power  to  relieve  the  people  of  Louisiana.     Under  a  fair  and  honest  election 
they  will  relieve  themselves." 

Warmoth  was  thoroughly  unscrupulous,  and  still  it  is  difficult  to  avoid 
a  degree  of  sympathy  with  him  in  his  struggle  with  the  United  States  offi 
cials,  whose  equally  unscrupulous  and  dishonorable  experience  was  winked 
at  and  seconded  by  the  national  Administration.  They  were  allowed  to 
employ  the  United  States  Army  in  supporting  one  wing  of  the  Republican 
party  to  defraud  another  of  its  equal  rights  in  the  convention  ;  and  the  same 
favored  faction  was  allowed  to  use  the  custom  house  and  the  revenue  cutter 
for  the  execution  of  their  unlawful  schemes.  Worst  of  all,  this  faction, 
headed  by  United  States  officers,  by  Packard,  the  United  States  marshal,  by 
Casey,  the  collector  of  the  customs,  and  by  Lowell,  the  postmaster  of  New 
Orleans,  was  countenanced,  and  therefore  aided  and  abetted,  by  the  Admin 
istration  at  Washington  in  the  treasonable  act  of  arresting  the  governor  of 
Louisiana. 

The  state  constitution  and  acts  passed  by  the  legislature  had  conferred 
upon  Warmoth,  as  governor,  arbitrary  power  in  the  regulation  of  elections. 
It  was  he  who  appointed  the  registrars  and  poll-keepers,  and  was  authorized 
to  prohibit  citizens  from  challenging  voters.  The  constitution  gave  to  regis 
tered  voters  the  right  to  vote  in  any  parish  or  in  any  part  of  a  parish  in  the 
state,  after  a  residence  of  ten  days ;  and  the  effect  of  exemption  from  chal 
lenge  was,  therefore,  equivalent  to  allowing  anybody  to  vote  who  was  willing 
to  swear  that  he  was  a  citizen  of  the  state.  Such  voters  could  vote  at  as 
many  places  also  as  they  could  reach  in  the  course  of  the  two  or  more  days 
during  which  the  election  continued.  It  is  a  well-known  fact,  that  during 
periods  of  high  political  excitement  there  are  many  vicious  characters  in 
every  community  who  are  little  scrupulous  in  the  observance  of  oaths  restric 
tive  of  suffrage.  It  is  equally  true  that  demagogues  have  little  difficulty  in 
persuading  the  illiterate  and  inconsiderate  that  it  is  their  duty  to  vote  as  often 
as  possible  in  support  of  what  they  are  taught  to  believe  a  good  cause. 
When  laws  become  lawless  contrivances  to  defeat  the  ends  of  justice,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  the  people  resort  to  lawless  expedients  for  securing  their 
rights. 

Warmoth,  who  was  responsible  for  much  of  the  lavish  expenditure  of 
the  government,  was  still  ambitious  of  being  thought  a  reformer,  while  his 
opponents  in  the  party,  equally  anxious  to  throw  off  the  responsibility  for 
plundering  the  people,  joined  the  Democratic  outcry  against  him.  In  his 
message  of  Jan.  i,  1872,  he  exposed  a  degree  of  legislative  profligacy  at 
the  preceding  session  of  sixty  days,  which  exceeds  anything  in  the  annals 
of  American  state  legislation,  unless  it  may  have  been  rivaled  or  surpassed 
by  the  carpet-baggers  and  field-hands  of  South  Carolina,  who  have  been  so 
graphically  described  by  Mr.  Pike,  in  his  Prostrate  State.  The  Louisiana 
law-givers,  in  the  brief  period  named,  managed  to  expend  in  salaries,  mile- 


ENORMOUS  LEGISLATIVE  EXPENSES.  559 

age,  printing,  stationery,  and  other  comforts,  the  sum  of  $958,956.  Gov 
ernor  Warmoth,  in  his  message,  comments  very  freely  upon  this  extrava 
gance,  and  speculates  upon  the  ways  in  which  the  money  went.  He  says 
that  the  expenses  of  the  general  assembly  for  salary  for  the  sixty  days'  session, 
and  for  mileage,  even  at  the  enormous  rate  of  twenty  cents  per  mile  each 
way,  could  not  have  been  more  than  $100,000  ;  and  that  the  legitimate  con 
tingent  expenses  of  both  houses  ought  not  to  have  exceeded  $25,000.  The 
excess,  $830,956,  was  squandered,  he  said,  in  the  payment  of  extra  mileage, 
of  fictitious  per  diem  of  salaries  of  an  enormous  corps  of  useless  clerks,  and 
of  imaginary  expenses  of  committees  authorized  to  sit  during  the  vacation 
and  to  travel  throughout  the  state  and  into  Texas,  and  in  a  hundred  different 
ways.  The  enrollment  committee  of  the  house  had  over  eighty  clerks, 
most  of  whom  were  under  pay  during  the  whole  session  at  eight  dollars 
per  day,  while  there  were  only  one  hundred  and  twenty  bills  passed,  and 
while  eight  or  ten  clerks  could  have  performed  the  whole  work  of  the  com 
mittee. 

A  comparison  of  the  legislative  expenses  for  1872  with  those  of  former 
years  will  illustrate  the  growth  of  corruption  as  a  result  of  reconstruction. 
In  1857  tne  legislative  expenditure  was  $100,000;  in  1858,  $85,000,  and  in 
1859  and  1860,  $100,000  each.  In  1861,  which  was  a  year  of  revolution  and 
extraordinary  expenditure,  the  cost  of  legislation  was  $175,000.  In  1864  it 
was  $75,000;  in  1865,  $225,000;  in  1866,  $170,000,  and  in  1867, 
$200,000.  In  1868  it  leaped  up  to  $250,000  ;  in  1869,  to  $380,000  ;  in  1870, 
to  $593,000;  in  1871,  to  $647,000,  and  in  1872,  to  $958,956.  But  this 
climax  of  legislative  knavery  cannot  be  fully  appreciated  except  in  associa 
tion  with  the  other  fact  that  it  was  achieved  by  the  party  which  claimed  to 
be  inspired  by  high  moral  ideas  and  by  the  most  disinterested  love  of  uni 
versal  liberty,  and  whose  special  mission  it  was  to  elevate  and  educate  the 
down-trodden  negro  race. 

Governor  Warmoth  obtained  an  injunction  restraining  the  auditor  from 
the  payment  of  the  outstanding  legislative  warrants,  on  the  ground  that  the 
vouchers  on  which  they  had  been  issued  were  fraudulent.  An  auditor  was 
appointed  by  the  court  to  investigate  the  matter,  and  the  result  was  the  dis 
covery  that,  in  many  cases,  the  original  amounts  of  the  warrants  had  been 
fraudulently  increased.  The  warrants  issued  in  excess  of  the  appropriations 
were  ascertained  to  amount  to  about  $240,000.  Warrants  amounting  to 
$40,000  had  been  issued  to  committees  and  their  clerks  for  mileage  and  ex 
penses  in  traveling  to  and  from  distant  places,  when  their  journals  showed 
that  they  had  not  been  absent  from  the  city.  It  was  also  shown  that  a  reg 
ular  system  of  forgery  had  been  practiced  by  brokers  dealing  in  these  war 
rants.  The  figures  written  by  the  warrant  clerk  had  been  changed  to  larger 
ones.  The  names  of  the  officers  whose  duty  it  was  to  sign  warrants  had 


560  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

also  been  forged  in  many  cases.     It  seems  that  none  of  the  guilty  parties 
were  brought  to  justice. 

The  mutual  charges  made  by  Warmoth  and  Carter,  the  leaders  of  the 
two  factions  into  which  the  Republicans  of  Louisiana  were  divided,  will 
serve  to  illustrate  the  political  morality  of  the  times.  Carter  charged  that 
Warmoth  had  come  to  Louisiana  poor,  and  that  he  had  made  a  "big  fortune" 
and  created  a  "big  debt"  for  the  state.  Warmoth  retorted  that  Carter 
had  supported  all  the  bills  making  large  appropriations  of  state  bonds,  and 
that  he  got  his  quid  pro  quo  in  each  and  every  case.  The  governor  made 
similar  charges  against  Charles  W.  Lowell  and  S.  B.  Packard,  and  against 
James  B.  Casey,  of  whom  Warmoth  said  :  "  My  friend  Jim  Casey  is  a  clever 
fellow.  He  hasn't  sense  enough  to  be  a  bad  fellow.  A  bad  fellow  must 
have  some  character.  He  hasn't  any."  Carter,  the  leader  of  the  opposition 
to  Warmoth,  was  equally  free  in  the  use  of  epithets.  He  said  in  a  speech 
in  February,  1872:  "Louisiana  is  afflicted  with  worse  laws  and  worse 
administrators  thereof  than  can  be  found  in  ten  states  of  the  Union.  Henry 
Clay  Warmoth  is  the  Boss  Tweed  of  Louisiana,  except  that  that  amiable 
villain,  with  all  his  infamies,  is  a  gentleman  and  a  saint  compared  with  the 
unscrupulous  despot  who  fills  the  executive  chair  of  this  state." 

It  can  scarcely  be  thought  necessary  to  give  details  of  the  bribery  and  cor 
ruption  of  which  the  testimony  taken  by  investigating  committees  affords 
super-abundant  proof.  Indeed,  there  is  so  much  of  it  that  one  hardly  knows 
where  to  begin  or  where  to  leave  off  the  recital.  Warmoth  seems  to  have 
"  covered  his  tracks,"  as  the  phrase  is,  better  than  others.  He  went  to  New 
Orleans  penniless  at  the  close  of  the  war.  He  was  a  native  of  Illinois,  en 
tered  the  volunteer  service  in  Missouri,  and  was  dismissed  by  General  Grant, 
on  a  charge  of  circulating  exaggerated  accounts  of  the  Union  losses  at  Vicks- 
burg ;  but,  this  charge  proving  to  be  groundless,  he  was  restored  by  Mr. 
Lincoln.  He  was  in  Texas  for  a  short  time,  where  he  was  indicted  for  em 
bezzlement  and  appropriating  government  cotton  ;  but,  no  prosecutor  ap 
pearing,  he  was  discharged.  This  was  before  he  located  in  New  Orleans, 
where  he  was  elected  to  Congress  under  President  Johnson's  reconstruction 
policy.  It  is  said  that  the  voters  at  the  election  each  contributed  half  a  dollar 
to  pay  his  expenses  to  Washington,  which  fact  would  imply  that  he  had  not 
been  very  successful  in  cotton  speculations  in  Texas.  When  the  committee 
reported  in  1872,  Warmoth  was  estimated  to  be  worth  from  half  a  million  to 
a  million  dollars.  He  testified  that  he  had  made  more  than  $100,000  the 
first  year.  Casey,  Packard,  Carter,  Lowell,  Herwig,  and  all  the  prominent 
leaders  were  interested  in  procuring  contracts  or  charters  by  which  the  state 
or  the  city  was  to  be  robbed  and  themselves  enriched ;  and  these  corrupt 
advantages  were  procured  by  bribery.  Lowell,  the  postmaster  of  New 
Orleans,  was  speaker  of  the  state  house  of  representatives  in  1868,  and  voted 
for  most  of  the  obnoxious  measures. 


CARPET-BAGGERS'  MONOPOLY  OF  OFFICES.  561 

Senator  Ray,  a  prominent  supporter  of  the  custom-house  faction,  got 
through  an  appropriation  for  a  railroad  from  Vicksburg  to  Monroe  amount 
ing  to  $546,000,  and  he  received  $70,000  for  revising  and  codifying  the  laws. 
He  was  deeply  interested  in  the  Louisiana  Levee  Company,  was  its  champion 
in  the  senate,  and  called  the  previous  question  by  which  discussion  was  cut 
off.  When  the  senate  adjourned,  he  became  president  of  the  company,  with 
a  salary  of  $10,000  per  annum.  The  act  of  incorporation  authorized  the 
building  of  fifteen  million  cubic  yards  of  levees  at  the  enormous  price  of 
sixty  cents  per  cubic  yard.  Herwig,  Casey's  deputy,  was  also  a  senator ; 
for  it  was  a  cardinal  principle  with  carpet-baggers  in  all  the  reconstructed 
states  to  monopolize  at  least  two  offices.  Herwig  was  interested  in  the  '"act 
to  incorporate  the  New  Orleans  Shed  Company,"  which  occupied  the  levee 
front  from  Common  to  Poydras  streets,  and  was  invested  with  power  to  im 
pose  a  tariff  on  commerce,  like  the  Algerine  pirates  on  the  Barbary  coast,  or 
the  noble  German  pirates  on  the  Rhine.  Casey,  the  collector,  was  also  inter 
ested  in  this  piratical  scheme  ;  but  Mr.  H.  Boardman  Smith,  in  his  elaborate 
apology  for  the  custom-house  faction,  put  in  the  extenuating  circumstances 
that  some  of  the  most  "  respectable  and  distinguished  Democratic  leaders  of 
the  state  "  were  implicated  in  the  same  scheme.  The  fact  that  Casey  had 
such  ' '  distinguished  and  respectable  "  Democratic  confederates  in  the  scheme 
of  levying  these  contributions  upon  commerce,  exonerated  him  from  re 
proach  in  the  estimation  of  Mr.  Congressman  Smith. 

Carter  was  an  apostatizing  preacher,  and  ex-Confederate  colonel,  who, 
as  a  last  resort,  turned  loyal  patriot  and  became  the  leader  of  the  anti-War- 
moth  faction  in  the  assembly.  He  also  had  an  interest  in  the  Louisiana 
Levee  Company,  which  was  given  him,  according  to  Warmoth,  in  consider 
ation  of  the  services  which  he  rendered  to  the  bill  as  speaker.  He  also  en 
joyed  as  a  sinecure  the  attorneyship  of  the  New  Orleans,  Mobile  and  Texas 
Railroad  Company,  at  a  salary  of  $10,000  per  annum.  Warmoth  says  that 
the  contract  for  his  employment  was  made  with  Carter  by  the  company  after 
he  had  kept  in  his  pocket  for  thirty  or  sixty  days  a  bill  which  had  passed  the 
legislature  almost  unanimously,  providing  for  subscription  to  two  millions 
and  a  half  of  its  stock  in  lieu  of  indorsement  of  its  second  mortgage  bonds ; 
and  that  immediately  after  this  contract  was  made,  by  which  he  became  the 
attorney  of  the  company,  the  bill  was  signed  by  him.  Carter  was  also  the 
paid  attorney  of  the  New  Orleans,  Jackson  and  Great  Northern  Railroad 
Company,  receiving  $5,000  per  annum. 

Packard,  the  governor  stated,  caused  to  be  prepared  and  introduced  in 
the  legislature  the  Nicolson  Pavement  bill,  which  would  have  cost  about 
one  and  a  quarter  million  of  dollars.  The  Democratic  members  of  the  com 
mittee,  Speer  and  Archer,  stated  that  Casey  was  already  proved  to  have 
been  interested  in,  and  the  holder  of,  a  corruption  fund  of  $18,000,  being 
part  of  a  $50,000  fund  raised  by  himself  and  others  to  bribe  the  legislature  to 
pass  a  bill  in  which  he  was  named  as  an  incorporator. 


562  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Such  were  the  tried  and  trusted  friends  and  supporters  in  Louisiana  of 
President  Grant's  administration. 

At  the  general  elections  in  November,  1872,  for  President,  congressmen, 
legislature,  and  state  officers,  Pinchback,  the  colored  lieutenant-governor, 
deserted  Warmoth  and  formed  a  coalition  or  fusion  with  the  custom-house 
faction.  The  election  took  place  on  the  4th  of  November,  the  day  previous 
to  the  elections  in  the  other  states,  and  resulted  in  victory  for  each  party,  ac 
cording  to  the  decisions  made  by  the  two  returning  boards.  According  to 
the  count  of  the  Warmoth  returning  board,  Greeley  received  66,467  votes, 
and  Grant  59,975.  According  to  the  custom-house  or  Kellogg  board, 
Greeley  received  57,029  votes,  and  Grant  71,663.  McEnery,  the  Demo 
cratic  or  liberal  candidate  for  governor,  according  to  the  custom-house 
count,  received  only  54,079  votes,  while  Kellogg  received  72,890.  But 
according  to  the  Warmoth  returning  board,  McEnery  had  a  majority  of 
7,000.  The  custom-house  board  gave  seats  in  the  senate  to  twenty-eight 
Republicans  and  eight  Democrats,  or  Fusionists,  and  gave  seats  in  the  house 
to  seventy-seven  Republicans  and  thirty-two  Fusionists. 

The  Fusionists  claimed  that  they  had  elected  a  majority  of  the  legisla 
ture,  and  that  body  met  in  the  city  hall ;  the  Mechanics'  Institute,  which  was 
the  temporary  state  capitol,  being  occupied  by  General  Emory  in  the  inter 
est  of  Packard,  Casey,  and  Kellogg.  The  Fusionist  legislature  petitioned 
the  President  to  withdraw  the  military  force  which  had  taken  possession  of 
the  state  capitol  for  the  purpose  of  awing  and  restraining  the  action  of  the 
governor,  but  the  President  refused  to  grant  their  petition.  In  other  words, 
he  assumed  the  responsibility  for  the  overthrow  of  the  state  government  by 
his  subordinates. 

The  Packard  legislature  met  in  the  capitol  on  the  9th  of  December, 
1872,  although  the  ist  of  January  was  the  day  fixed  in  the  constitution. 
Pinchback,  the  president  of  the  senate,  claimed  to  hold  over  in  that  capa 
city.  The  house,  Lowell  the  postmaster  presiding  as  speaker,  immediately 
proceeded  to  impeach  Governor  Warmoth  for  "  high  crimes  and  misdemean 
ors,"  and  thereupon  Pinchback  assumed  the  office  of  governor.  Judge 
Elmore,  one  of  the  state  judges,  issued  a  writ  forbidding  Pinchback  to  take 
charge  of  the  executive  office  ;  but  a  dispatch  from  United  States  Attorney- 
General  Williams  assured  Pinchback  that  his  authority  was  recognized  by 
President  Grant,  and  that  the  state  would  be  protected  from  disorder  and 
violence.  It  was  not  the  habit  of  President  Grant  to  wait  upon  "  the  law's 
delay,"  or  upon  the  slow  deliberations  of  courts  and  legislatures,  when  an 
order  from  headquarters  or  a  rescript  from  the  White  House  could  dispose 
of  the  matter  in  a  moment.  Mr.  Ogden,  the  attorney-general  of  the  state, 
and  Mr.  McEnery,  who  claimed  that  he  had  been  elected  governor  and  held 
Governor  Warmoth's  certificate  to  that  effect,  petitioned  President  Grant  to 
suspend  his  decision  in  the  premises  until  the  facts  could  be  laid  before  him  ; 
but  no  attention  was  paid  to  their  request. 


PROTEST  OF  THE  TAX-PAYERS.  563 

A  meeting  of  the  people  —  the  property-holders  and  tax-payers  —  ap 
pointed  a  delegation  of  one  hundred  of  their  number  to  proceed  to  Washing 
ton  and  lay  their  grievances  before  the  President.  This  was  on  the  loth  of 
December,  1872.  Mr.  McEnery  telegraphed  to  the  President,  asking  him  to 
delay  the  recognition  of  either  government  until  that  committee  could  reach 
Washington  and  lay  the  case  before  him  and  Congress.  To  his  request  he 
received  a  reply,  signed  by  Attorney-General  Williams,  in  these  words : 
"  Your  visit  with  one  hundred  citizens  will  be  unavailing  so  far  as  the  Presi 
dent  is  concerned.  His  decision  is  made  and  will  not  be  changed,  and  the 
sooner  it  is  acquiesced  in,  the  sooner  good  order  and  peace  will  be  restored." 

The  custom-house  returning  board  had  no  official  returns  of  the  election, 
and  had  substituted  therefor  as  the  basis  of  its  action,  rumors  and  unauthen- 
ticated  documents.  It  had  counted  as  so  many  votes  the  affidavits  of  all  per 
sons,  real  or  pretended,  who  declared  that  they  had  been  wrongfully  denied 
the  privilege  of  registration.  A  government  thus  set  up  by  fraud,  by  Presi 
dent  Grant's  civil  officials,  President  Grant  upheld  by  United  States  soldiers. 
The  legislature  was  worthy  of  its  origin.  Of  the  140  members  of  the  two 
houses,  say  the  citizens'  committee,  sixty-eight  were  of  African  descent, 
most  of  whom  were  totally  illiterate  ;  and  from  day  to  day  during  the  session 
members  were  expelled  or  unseated,  their  places  being  given  to  contestants, 
until  few  of  the  Democratic  opposition  were  left. 

A  public  meeting  of  the  tax-payers,  irrespective  of  party,  was  held  in 
New  Orleans  on  the  3d  of  January,  to  express  opposition  to  the  Pinchback 
government,  and  to  support  that  of  McEnery.  A  committee  which  was  ap 
pointed  by  the  meeting  issued  an  address  calling  upon  the  people  of  the  city 
and  state  to  sustain  the  legislature  (meaning  that  returned  by  the  Warmoth 
board)  which  was  about  to  meet,  by  giving  it  their  moral  support.  Pinch- 
back  issued  a  proclamation  declaring  that  Governor  Kellogg  would  be  in 
augurated,  and  that  the  Republican  legislature  would  meet  at  the  appointed 
time,  but  that  "no  pretended  governor  and  no  pretended  general  assembly" 
should  convene  and  disturb  the  public  peace. 

Pinchback  had  reason  to  count  on  national  aid  in  carrying  out  this  declara 
tion  ;  for  the  President,  only  three  weeks  before,  had  given  him  the  assur 
ance  that  his  government  was  recognized  and  would  be  sustained.  But  he 
was  doomed  to  disappointment.  The  McEnery  legislature  was  quietly 
organized,  being  surrounded  and  protected  by  the  United  States  troops  that 
were  called  out  to  preserve  the  peace  between  the  rival  parties  without 
showing  favor  to  either.  The  people  also  turned  out  in  large  force  to  de 
fend  the  Democratic  legislature  ;  but,  as  Pinchback  made  no  effort  to  enforce 
his  proclamation,  they  returned  quietly  to  their  homes.  It  is  improbable 
that  General  Emory  would  have  failed  to  sustain  Pinchback  and  to  repress 
the  McEnery  party  if  he  had  not  received  instructions  to  that  effect ;  and 
it  is  to  be  inferred,  therefore,  that  President  Grant  found  it  necessary,  or 


564  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

prudent,  to  abandon  his  decision  announced  in  the  letter  of  Attorney-General 
Williams. 

On  the  1 4th  of  January,  the  two  governors  were  inaugurated  amid  great 
excitement,  Kellogg  at  the  state  capitol  and  McEnery  at  Lafayette  Square. 
The  Metropolitan  police  and  the  United  States  troops  were  called  out  for  the 
preservation  of  peace  and  order. 

On  the  same  day,  January  i4th,  the  United  States  Senate  adopted  a  reso 
lution  of  inquiry  into  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Louisiana,  with  instructions 
to  report  whether  there  were  any  existing  state  government  there.  The  con 
clusion  arrived  at  by  the  committee  was  that,  unless  the  election  were  held 
to  be  absolutely  void  for  frauds,  McEnery  and  his  associates  in  state  offices, 
and  the  persons  certified  as  members  of  the  legislature  by  the  De  Feriet  or 
Warmoth  board,  ought  to  be  recognized  as  the  legal  government  of  the 
state ;  and  that  there  seemed  to  be  no  escape  from  the  alternative,  that 
the  McEnery  government  must  be  recognized  by  Congress,  or  that  Congress 
must  provide  for  a  re-election.  And  the  committee  argued  that  under  the 
clause  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  that  the  United  States  shall  guar 
antee  to  every  state  a  republican  form  of  government,  the  power  to  order  a 
new  election  existed  in  Congress.  A  bill  to  that  effect  was  accordingly  in 
troduced,  but  it  failed  to  become  a  law ;  and  affairs  in  Louisiana  were  al 
lowed  to  drift  as  they  might,  under  the  government  of  Kellogg  and  the  legis 
lature  manufactured  by  the  custom-house,  or  Pinchback,  returning  board. 

Encouraged  by  the  failure  of  Congress  to  pass  an  act  authorizing  a  new 
election,  President  Grant  returned  to  his  first  love,  which  was  the  custom 
house  governor  and  legislature.  This  government  had  enacted  rigid  laws 
for  the  collection  of  the  taxes,  more  than  two  millions  of  which  were  said  to 
be  in  arrears,  and  the  militia  was  to  be  called  out  to  aid  the  tax-gatherers. 
On  the  other  hand,  McEnery  and  his  legislature  were  far  from  surrendering 
their  pretensions,  and  on  the  I5th  of  February  he  issued  a  proclamation  for 
bidding  the  payment  of  taxes  to  the  Kellogg  faction,  and  on  the  2yth  he 
issued  another  proclamation  ordering  an  enrollment  of  the  militia.  These 
movements  of  the  Democratic  governor  were  backed  up  by  a  mass-meeting 
held  in  New  Orleans  on  the  ist  of  March.  The  whites  had  a  large  ma 
jority  in  that  city,  possessing  nearly  all  its  wealth  and  intelligence,  so  that 
the  Kellogg  movement  could  not  have  been  maintained  a  single  day  but  for 
the  support  received  from  Federal  bayonets.  This  mass-meeting  adopted 
resolutions  sustaining  McEnery  and  calling  on  the  President  to  withdraw  the 
troops,  or  else  to  re-establish  martial  law. 

On  the  6th  of  March,  an  effort  was  made  by  the  people  to  seize  the 
police  stations,  which  was  attended  with  considerable  bloodshed,  and  was 
defeated  by  the  Metropolitan  police.  McEnery  disavowed  this  act  of  the 
mob  as  premature  and  unauthorized.  This  failure,  however,  emboldened 
the  Kellogg  party  to  retaliate  by  the  capture,  on  the  same  day,  of  Odd  Fel- 


NEGRO  REVOLT  AGAINST  THE  KELLOGG  GOVERNMENT.   565 

lows  Hall,  in  which  the  McEnery  legislature  sat,  and  by  the  arrest  of  the 
members,  who  were  marched  out  between  files  of  soldiers,  and  taken  to  the 
guard-house. 

McEnery  appealed  to  General  Emory,  the  commander  of  the  Department 
of  the  Gulf,  asking  him  whether  or  not  this  action  of  the  Metropolitan  police 
force  met  with  his  countenance  and  approval,  and  whether  the  United  States 
forces  under  his  command  would  support  the  armed  occupation  of  Odd  Fel 
lows  Hall.  To  this  General  Emory  replied  that  the  seizure  had  been  made 
without  his  knowledge  and  without  conference  with  him  ;  but  he  inclosed 
a  copy  of  a  telegram  received  by  him  from  Washington  making  it  his  duty 
to  prevent  any  violence  against  the  state  government  of  Louisiana,  which 
was  that  represented  by  Kellogg.  He  added  that  if  the  seizure  of  Odd  Fel 
lows  Hall  was  the  act  of  Governor  Kellogg  and  of  the  government  of  the 
State  of  Louisiana,  and  if  any  violence  were  used  to  interfere  with  that  act, 
he  should  most  assuredly  consider  it  his  instructions  to  prevent  any  such 
violent  interference.  This  correspondence  was  followed  by  the  issue  of  an 
address  to  the  people  by  McEnery,  and  by  the  temporary  abandonment  on 
his  part  of  all  effort  to  assert  his  authority. 

But  the  establishment  of  the  Kellogg  government  did  not  bring  peace  to 
the  state.  A  revolt  of  the  negroes  in  Grand  Parish  against  the  Kellogg  gov 
ernment  took  place  in  the  spring  of  the  year  1873.  The  negroes  captured 
the  town  of  Colfax,  which  they  held  from  the  ist  to  the  i3th  of  April,  killing 
in  the  meantime  two  colored  men  who  refused  to  join  them.  At  length  a 
sheriff  appointed  by  Kellogg  raised  a  posse  of  1 25  white  men  and  besieged 
the  negroes,  300  strong,  in  the  court  house,  which  they  had  fortified.  The 
negroes  consented  to  a  parley,  but  shot  two  of  the  attacking  party  who  were 
sent  to  them  under  a  flag  of  truce.  The  court  house  was  then  fired,  and 
many  of  the  negroes  were  shot  and  killed  while  attempting  to  escape.  A 
state  of  lawlessness  existed  in  other  parishes,  originating  in  the  attempt  of 
Kellogg  to  enforce  the  collection  of  taxes,  which  were  in  arrears  to  the 
amount  of  $2,331,000.  In  his  appeal  to  the  commanding  general  for  the 
assistance  of  the  troops,  he  represented  that  the  local  authorities  were  utterly 
unable  to  keep  the  peace.  The  President  issued  a  proclamation  commanding 
the  insurgents  to  disperse  and  return  to  their  homes  ;  and  Mr.  McEnery,  in 
view  of  the  hopelessness  of  the  unequal  contest,  issued  an  address  advising 
his  friends  to  abstain  from  resisting  the  Federal  Government. 

But  the  most  shocking  instance  of  lawlessness  and  violence  took  place  in 
Red  River  Parish,  near  the  town  of  Coushatta.  Kellogg's  account  of  it  is, 
that  about  the  28th  of  August,  1874,  a  body  of  persons  belonging  to  a  semi- 
military  organization  known  as  the  White  League  of  Louisiana,  assembled 
in  Coushatta  for  the  purpose  of  compelling,  by  force  of  arms,  the  state  offi 
cers  of  that  parish  to  resign  their  positions.  These  officers,  he  says,  were 
men  of  good  character,  most  of  them  largely  interested  in  planting  and  mer- 


566  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

cantile  pursuits,  the  only  objection  to  them  being  that  they  were  of  Republi 
can  principles.  The  sheriff  of  the  parish  summoned  a  posse  comitatus  of  citi 
zens,  white  and  colored,  to  assist  him  in  protecting  these  officers.  This  posse, 
consisting  of  sixty-five  men,  was  overruled  by  a  superior  force  assembled  from 
the  adjacent  parishes,  and  finally  they  surrendered  themselves  prisoners  with 
the  explicit  guarantee  that  their  lives  would  be  spared,  if  the  more  prominent 
Republicans  would  agree  to  leave  the  parish,  and  if  those  holding  office 
would  resign  their  positions.  These  stipulations  were  complied  with  on 
the  part  of  the  Republican  officials,  who  were  then  locked  in  jail  for  the 
night.  These  persons  were  Homer  G.  Twitchell,  planter  and  tax-collector 
of  Red  River  Parish,  and  deputy  United  States  postmaster  at  Coushatta ; 
Robert  A.  Deweese,  supervisor  of  registration,  De  Soto  Parish  ;  Clark  Hol 
land,  merchant  and  supervisor  of  registration,  Red  River  Parish  ;  W.  T. 
Howell,  parish  attorney  and  United  States  counsel ;  Frank  S.  Edgerton, 
sheriff  of  Red  River  Parish,  and  M.  E.  Willis,  merchant  and  justice  of  the 
peace.  On  the  following  morning,  Sunday,  the  3oth  of  August,  these  per 
sons  were  bound  together,  two  and  two,  and  conducted  by  an  armed  guard 
to  the  McFarland  plantation,  just  across  the  parish  line,  where  they  were  set 
upon  and  deliberately  murdered  in  cold  blood.  Their  bodies  were  buried 
where  they  fell,  without  inquest  or  any  formality  whatever. 

The  Democratic  or  Southern  account  of  this  shocking  massacre  is  to  the 
effect  that  a  band  of  negroes  had  shot  at  a  white  man  and  then  resisted  an 
attempt  to  arrest  them  ;  that  one  of  the  white  men  who  was  of  the  party  was 
shot  and  killed  by  the  negroes  ;  that  the  next  day  Homer  Twitchell  and  two 
negroes  were  charged  with  having  killed  two  white  men ;  that  this  caused 
the  whites  to  turn  out  in  force  and  capture  the  persons  before  named.  It  is 
also  alleged  that  these  persons  were,  by  their  own  request,  started  to  Shreve- 
port  under  a  guard  of  seventeen  men,  and  that  they  were  intercepted  and 
shot  by  a  band  of  unknown  men,  the  six  negroes  being  set  at  liberty.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  however,  about  the  main  facts,  which  may  be  set  down  as 
among  the  horrible  consequences  which  ought  to  have  been  anticipated  as 
likely  to  result  from  the  attempt  to  govern  a  free  people  by  a  pack  of 
knavish  adventurers  from  abroad,  under  the  patronage  of  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment  and  sustained  by  Federal  bayonets. 

The  utter  weakness  and  inability  of  the  Kellogg  government  to  maintain 
its  assumed  authority  was  shown  on  the  I4th  of  September,  1874.  A  mass 
meeting  was  held  that  day  at  the  Clay  statue,  in  Canal  Street,  New  Orleans, 
for  the  purpose  of  protesting  against  the  Kellogg  administration,  and 
especially  against  a  seizure  of  arms  that  had  been  recently  made.  This 
meeting  adopted  resolutions  calling  on  Kellogg  to  abdicate,  and  appointing 
a  committee  to  wait  upon  him  and  present  the  request  of  the  people.  This 
committee  called  at  the  executive  office  for  the  purpose  of  laying  the  resolu 
tions  before  the  governor,  but  did  not  obtain  an  interview  with  him.  It 


THE  MILITIA  AND  POLICE  ENCOUNTER  EACH  OTHER.          567 

received  an  answer,  however,  through  one  of  the  governor's  staff  declining 
to  receive  any  communication  from  the  committee,  on  the  ground  of  there 
being  several  large  bodies  of  armed  men  in  different  parts  of  the  city,  whose 
presence  was  a  menace  to  the  government ;  but  saying  that,  should  the  peo 
ple  assemble  peaceably  without  menace,  he  would  deem  it  one  of  his  high 
est  duties  to  receive  any  communication  from  them  or  to  entertain  any  peti 
tion  addressed  to  the  government.  The  committee  in  reply  denied  that 
there  were  any  armed  men  in  the  city  to  their  knowledge.  They  declared 
that  they  had  come  on  a  mission  of  peace,  and  that  if  the  governor  acceded 
to  their  proposition  of  abdication,  the  people  of  Louisiana  would  be  pacified, 
and  violence  and  bloodshed  prevented. 

When  the  report  of  the  committee  was  made  to  the  public  meeting,  it  was 
followed  by  an  appeal  to  arms  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  driving  Kellogg 
from  power.  Mr.  McEnery  was  absent  from  the  city,  and  Mr.  Penn,  who 
had  run  on  the  same  ticket  with  him  for  lieutenant-governor,  stepped  forward 
as  the  acting  governor  and  issued  a  proclamation  calling  out  the  militia, 
"without  regard  to  color  or  previous  condition."  Mr.  Frederick  Ogden  was 
appointed  "  provisional  general  of  the  Louisiana  state  militia,"  and  was 
ordered  to  assume  command  at  once  and  organize  the  militia  into  com 
panies,  regiments,  and  battalions.  By  three  o'clock  of  the  same  day  a  large 
number  of  armed  men  had  mustered  at  the  rendezvous  on  Poydras  Street. 
Here  they  fortified  themselves  by  barricading  all  the  neighboring  streets. 
There  were  very  few  United  States  troops  in  New  Orleans  at  that  time, 
and  Governor  Kellogg's  chief  reliance  was  the  Metropolitan  police  force, 
which  was  well-armed,  had  some  artillery,  and  was  commanded  by  Generals 
Longstreet  and  Badger.  About  four  o'clock  the  opposing  forces  encountered 
each  other  on  Canal  Street,  near  the  river,  and  after  a  brief  but  bloody  strug 
gle,  the  police  were  completely  routed  with  a  loss  of  fourteen  killed  and  be 
tween  twenty  and  forty  wounded.  The  loss  of  the  insurgents  was  twelve 
killed  and  thirteen  wounded,  several  of  the  latter  mortally.  Next  morning 
the  police  laid  down  their  arms  and  the  state  house  was  surrendered  to  the 
militia  under  Ogden.  Kellogg  took  refuge  in  the  custom  house,  while  the 
whole  property  of  the  state  and  city  was  taken  possession  of  by  the  insur 
gents.  So  the  revolution  was  complete.  The  coup  d'etat  was  executed 
with  a  skill  worthy  of  Frenchmen.  The  armory  and  arsenals,  the  police 
stations,  and  fire-alarm  telegraphs,  with  the  whole  machinery  of  the  state 
and  city  governments,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  acting  governor,  Penn,  and 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  intervention  of  the  President,  the  government  of 
Kellogg  and  his  legislature  would  have  gone  down  forever  without  leaving  a 
ripple  on  the  surface. 

Mr.  Penn  sent  a  dispatch  to  President  Grant,  briefly  informing  him  of 
what  had  been  done  and  the  reasons  for  it,  and  declaring  the  unswerving 
loyalty  of  the  people.  All  he  asked  for  was  that  the  President  should 


568  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

"  withhold  any  aid  or  protection  from  our  enemies  and  the  enemies  of 
republican  rights  and  of  the  peace  and  liberty  of  the  people." 

Kellogg  also  sent  on  his  version  of  the  affair  to  the  President,  who  re 
sponded  promptly  and  energetically  in  a  proclamation  dated  September  15, 
in  which  he  commanded  the  "turbulent  and  disorderly  persons"  to  dis 
perse  and  retire  peacefully  to  their  respective  homes  within  five  days,  and  to 
submit  themselves  thereafter  to  the  laws  and  constituted  authorities  of  the 
state. 

Thus  were  the  people  of  Louisiana  again  put  under  the  yoke  which 
Senators  Carpenter,  Logan,  Alcorn,  and  Anthony  declared  to  have  been 
originally  imposed  by  fraud  and  violence  —  the  violence  being  furnished  by 
President  Grant.  The  President  made  good  his  proclamation  by  sending 
troops  and  men-of-war  to  New  Orleans  to  enforce  it.  General  Emory  was 
instructed  to  take  possession  of  the  state  property  and  turn  it  over  to  Kel 
logg  ;  to  maintain  the  peace  ;  and,  under  no  circumstances,  to  recognize 
Penn's  government. 

On  the  i yth,  the  latter  surrendered,  under  protest,  to  General  Emory, 
who,  instead  of  placing  Kellogg  in  control  of  affairs,  appointed  Colonel 
Brooke  military  governor  of  New  Orleans.  This  act  was  disapproved  by  the 
President.  But  it  turned  out  that  Kellogg  was  in  no  hurry  to  resume  the 
functions  of  an  office  the  duties  of  -which  he  was  conscious  of  being  unable 
to  execute  without  the  support  of  Federal  bayonets.  General  Emory  ex 
plained  to  President  Grant  that  he  had  "  placed  Governor  Brooke  in  command 
of  the  city  as  well  as  in  command  of  the  troops.  Otherwise  there  would 
have  been  anarchy.  Governor  Kellogg,"  he  said,  "  did  not  call,  and  has  not 
yet  called,  on  me  for  support  to  re-establish  the  state  government.  His  chief 
of  police  was  shot  down,  and  the  next  in  command  also  ;  and  the  whole  force 
utterly  dispersed  and  hidden  away  out  of  sight.  For  one  of  them  to  stand  on 
his  beat  would  have  been  certain  destruction,  and  even  now  the  state  author 
ities  represented  by  Governor  Kellogg  have  asked  to  defer  taking  charge  for 
the  present." 

It  was  a  humiliating  confession  of  incapacity  to  govern,  when  the  head  of 
the  state  feared  to  take  the  reins  in  hand,  although  supported  by  the  United 
States  army  and  navy.  But  Kellogg' s  experience  had  taught  him  to  regard 
the  part  of  puppet  even  as  a  dangerous  and  undesirable  distinction,  and  it  was 
not  until  the  I9th  that  he  was  encouraged  to  emerge  from  his  hiding-place  in 
the  custom  house  under  the  panoply  of  the  United  States  flag,  by  the  assur 
ance  from  General  Emory  that  he  would  be  furnished  the  necessary  military 
support  to  re-establish  the  state  government. 

The  city  was  policed  by  the  military  during  these  days  of  restoration  to 
carpet-bag  rule  ;  and  when  the  city  police  had  been  reorganized  and  had  re 
sumed  their  duties,  they  were  still  for  a  time  protected,  as  General  Emory 
stated,  by  troops  stationed  at  various  points. 


EFFORTS  TO  DIVIDE  THE  COLORED  VOTE.  569 

The  results  of  the  election  in  November,  1874,  are  so  well  and  clearly 
stated  by  the  sub-committee  of  the  United  States  House  of  Representatives, 
of  which  Mr.  Hoar  was  chairman,  that  nothing  better  can  be  done  than  to 
present  its  conclusions,  and  its  reasons  for  them.  This  sub-committee,  com 
posed  of  Messrs.  Charles  Foster,  of  Ohio,  Wm.  Walter  Phelps,  of  New  Jersey, 
and  Clarkson  N.  Potter,  of  New- York,  two  Republicans  and  one  Democrat, 
spent  eight  days  in  New  Orleans  in  taking  testimony.  They  agreed  in  their 
report  on  the  subject.  This  fact,  that  three  highly  intelligent  men,  repre 
senting  the  two  great  parties,  after  thorough  investigation,  arrived  at  a 
common  conclusion,  furnishes  the  best  evidence  of  its  correctness.  They 
examined  ninety-five  witnesses  and  collected  a  large  amount  of  documentary 
evidence.  They  expressed  themselves  constrained  to  declare  that  the  action 
of  the  returning  board,  on  the  whole,  was  arbitrary,  unjust,  and-  illegal, 
and  that  that  arbitrary,  unjust,  and  illegal  action  alone  prevented  the  return 
of  a  majority  of  conservative  members  to  the  lower  house. 

As  illustrative  of  the  character  of  the  Kellogg  administration,  and  show 
ing  that  it  was  made  up  of  unprincipled  adventurers  whose  sole  business  in 
Louisiana  was  to  enrich  themselves  by  robbing  the  people,  they  state  that  no 
witnesses  had  succeeded  in  naming,  in  any  rural  parish,  five  white  Republi 
cans  who  supported  the  Kellogg  government  who  were  not  themselves  office 
holders  or  related  to  or  employed  by  office-holders.  They  state  that  in  New 
Orleans,  houses  and  stores  were  to  be  had  for  the  taxes  ;  that  in  Natchitoches 
Parish  the  taxation  reached  about  eight  per  centum  on  the  assessed  value  of 
the  property ;  that  in  many  parishes  all  the  white  Republicans  and  all  the 
office-holders  belonged  to  a  single  family ;  and  that  the  securities  of  the  state 
had  fallen  in  two  years  from  seventy  or  eighty  per  centum  to  twenty-five,  and 
of  the  city  of  New  Orleans  from  eighty  or  ninety  per  centum  to  thirty  or 
forty  —  the  fall  in  bank  shares,  railroad  shares,  and  stock  of  cities  and  other 
corporations  being  in  a  corresponding  degree.  The  committee  accounts,  to 
some  extent,  for  the  Republican  defeat  in  the  following  statement : 

"But  the  reduction  of  wages,  the  non-fulfillment  of  personal  or  political 
pledges,  the  malfeasance  of  home  and  local  officials,  disputes  among  the 
leading  colored  persons  in  other  localities,  the  loss  and  embezzlement  in 
some  cases  of  the  school  funds,  and  the  failure  of  the  Freedmen's  Bank  — 
all  combined  to  divide  the  views  of  the  colored  voters  during  the  late  cam 
paign.  An  effort  was  accordingly  made  by  the  conservatives  to  acquire  a 
part  of  the  negro  vote.  With  that  view,  it  was  sought  in  many  quarters  to 
propitiate  them." 

Another  committee  of  Congress  was  sent  down  to  New  Orleans,  com 
posed  of  Messrs.  George  F.  Hoar,  of  Massachusetts,  William  A.  Wheeler, 
of  New- York,  William  P.  Frye,  of  Maine,  and  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  of  Illi 
nois,  —  the  last  named  being  the  only  Democrat.  The  object  of  this  com 
mittee  was  to  effect  a  compromise  between  the  parties.  This  was  accom- 

36 


570  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

plished  on  the  basis  of  allowing  Kellogg  to  retain  the  office  of  governor, 
while  the  Democratic  members  who  were  elected  in  Rapides,  Iberia,  and 
the  other  parishes  which  had  been  rejected  by  the  returning  board,  were 
allowed  to  take  their  seats  in  the  legislature.  This  gave  a  decided  majority 
to  the  Democrats  or  conservatives  —  the  native  whites  who  paid  the  taxes, 
and  who  had  been  the  victims  of  Republican  robbery.  This  class  has  ever 
since  retained  the  ascendency  in  the  control  of  the  state  affairs.  The  dis 
graceful  scramble  and  compromise  of  two  years  later,  over  the  Presidential 
question,  in  which  the  Republicans  were  "counted  in"  upon  the  national 
elections,  and  "counted  out"  upon  the  state  election,  must  be  relegated  to 
the  province  of  general  history. 

The  public  debt  and  "  liabilities"  of  Louisiana,  at  different  periods,  have 
been  as  follows  —  the  "  liabilities  "  being  on  account  of  indorsement  of  rail 
road  bonds,  or  legislative  agreements  to  lend  the  state  bonds  to  railroads : 

Jan.  i,  1861, $10,099,074 

Jan.  i,  1868, 14,347,051 

June  i,  1870,      .         .                   .                            ...  41^94,473 

Excess  of  expenditures  over  receipts  up  to  1871,           .          .  9?345>733 

Jan.  i,  1873,       .  45,183,907 

The  contingent  liabilities  in  1873  amounted  to  $21,090,500,  but  the  bonds 
had  not  been  issued,  and  a  constitutional  amendment  of  1874  prohibited  their 
issue.  On  the  ist  of  January,  1875,  the  bonds  and  floating  debt  amounted 
to  $23,336,660. 

The  grand  debates  before  the  people  from  the  close  of  the  war  until  the 
election  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  and  especially  about  the  time  when  Andrew 
Johnson  was  in  collision  with  the  Republican  Senators  and  congressmen, 
raised  high  and  far  above  all  others  the  question  of  the  restoration  of  all  the 
states  lately  in  insurrection  to  their  complete  Federal  relations.  Was  it  not 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  who  gave,  in  one  pregnant  sentence,  the  philosophy 
of  that  contest?  "Our  theory  of  government,"  said  he,  "has  no  place  for 
a  state  except  in  the  Union."  In  his  opinion  it  is  justly  taken  for  granted 
that  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  a  state  in  Federal  relations  tend  to 
its  political  health,  and  to  that  of  the  whole  nation.  Territories  had  been 
brought  in  with  haste,  even  before  the  fulfillment  of  prescribed  conditions, 
as  though  it  were  dangerous  to  leave  them  outside  of  the  great  body  politic. 
Mr.  Beecher  believed  that  if  the  Senators  and  Representatives  from  Tennes 
see  had  been  admitted  at  once  on  the  assembling  of  Congress,  and  if,  in  suc 
cession,  as  qualified,  Arkansas,  Georgia,  Alabama,  North  Carolina,  and  Vir 
ginia  had  been  reinstated,  the  public  mind  of  the  South  would  have  been  far 
more  healthy  than  it  was  in  1866,  and  that  states  lingering  on  probation  to 
the  last  would  have  been  under  a  more  salutary  influence  than  though  a  dozen 


THE  TRUE  SPHERE  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT.  571 

armies  had  watched  over  them.  Was  not  this  true  philosophy?  Did  not 
this  minister  of  grace  advise  a  healthful  regimen  in  the  progress  of  restora 
tion  ?  Was  not  the  opposite  of  his  thought  improgressive  ?  Did  it  not  op 
erate  to  exclude  great  masses  of  the  people,  unsettle^  before  and  growing 
more  irritable  ?  Did  it  not  substitute  military  for  local  government  ?  Was 
not  the  government  at  Washington  called  upon  to  interfere  in  one  and  an 
other  difficulty?  Was  not  the  method  of  interposition  which  was  pursued  in 
1866,  and  for  many  years  afterwards  —  was  it  not,  as  shown  by  events,  pur 
sued  inaptly  and  sometimes  with  great  injustice?  Did  not  this  eminent 
sage  speak  more  wisely,  and  from  a  higher  than  a  mere  political  plane,  when 
he  said  that  our  government  was  adapted  to  its  own  proper  functions,  that  it 
was  in  its  nature  utterly  devoid  of  those  habits  of  iniquity  which  belong  to  a 
centralized  government,  and  that  it  was  in  accord  with  the  essential  quality 
of  freedom  to  remit  authority  in  local  affairs  to  the  states  ? 

He  spoke  with  discernment  when  he  said  that  the  Federal  Government 
was  unfit  to  exercise  minor  police  and  local  government,  and  would  inevita 
bly  blunder  in  the  attempt.  Indignantly  he  asked  whether  the  Nation  was  to 
remain  dismembered  to  serve  the  ends  of  parties?  He  was  not  afraid,  at 
the  beginning  of  our  last  decade,  to  admit  that  the  power,  even  if  it  should 
pass  into  the  hands  of  a  party  made  up  of  Southern  men,  and  of  the  hitherto 
dishonored  and  misled  Democracy  of  the  North,  could  not  be  used  just  as 
they  pleased  ;  for  the  war  had  changed  not  alone  institutions  but  ideas.  The 
whole  country  had  advanced.  Public  sentiment  had  been  exalted  far  beyond 
what  it  had  been  at  any  former  period.  A  new  party  would,  like  a  river,  of 
necessity  find  a  course  determined  by  the  existing  slopes  and  forms  of  the 
continent. 

Therefore,  with  wonder,  and  shame,  and  scorn  he  heard  the  fear  expressed 
by  a  few  that  the  South,  if  once  more  in  adjustment  with  the  Federal  Gov 
ernment,  would  rule  the  Nation.  Was  not  the  North  rich?  Never  so  rich. 
The  South  poor?  Never  so  poor.  Was  not  the  population  of  the  North 
double  that  of  the  South  ?  Was  not  the  industry  of  the  North  in  diversity, 
in  forwardness  and  productiveness,  and  in  all  the  machinery  and  education 
required  for  manufactures,  half  a  century  in  advance  of  the  South?  Were 
there  not  churches  in  the  North  crowning  every  hill,  and  schools  swarming 
in  every  neighborhood  ?  The  South  had  but  scattering  lights  at  long  dis 
tances,  like  light-houses  twinkling  along  the  edge  of  a  continent  of  darkness. 

In  the  presence  of  such  a  contrast,  he  exclaimed,  "How  mean  and 
craven  is  the  fear  that  the  South  will  rule  the  policy  of  the  land  !  "  Conced 
ing  that  the  South  would  have  a  most  important  restraining  influence,  he 
saw  with  clearness  that  if  it  should  rise  at  once  to  the  control  of  the  govern 
ment  it  would  be  because  of  refusal  by  the  North,  demoralized  by  prosperity 
and  besotted  by  groveling  interests,  to  discharge  its  share  of  political  duty. 


572  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

In  such  case,  he  said,  the  South  would  not  only  control  the  government,  but 
ought  to  control  it.  This  was  prophecy.  Since  it  was  made,  a  new  evangel 
has  appeared  upon  the  very  mountain-tops  and  in  the  valleys  of  our  land. 
We  are  united.  The  great  chasm  which  the  rebellion  made  has  been  nearly 
filled  up.  It  grows  narrower.  There  no  longer  arise  out  of  it  the  dread 
spectres  and  threatening  shapes  which  these  pictures  of  reconstruction  in  the 
preceding  chapters  have  portrayed. 

At  length,  and  after  the  long  night  of  reconstruction  affliction,  there  rose 
a  day-star  in  the  hearts  of  the  prostrate  states.  Then  came  serene  day  itself, 
and  as  its  luminary  turned  toward  its  setting,  its  gleams  of  comfort  upon  the 
Southern  land  fell  cool  and  sweet,  the  shadows  lengthened,  pointing  to  the 
dawn  which  1884  gave. 

The  condition  of  affairs  in  Texas  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1867  was 
as  bad  as  possible,  if  the  reports  of  the  army  officers  may  be  relied  on. 
General  Sheridan,  as  commander  of  the  Department  of  the  Gulf,  in  his 
report  to  General  Grant,  dated  New  Orleans,  Jan.  25,  1867,  stated  that  the 
condition  of  the  freedmen  and  Union  men  in  remote  parts  of  Texas  was  truly 
horrible ;  and  that  the  freedmen  were  shot  and  Union  men  were  persecuted 
if  they  had  the  temerity  to  express  their  opinions.  General  Grant  trans 
mitted  this  report  to  the  Secretary  of  War.  He  recommended  that  martial 
law  be  declared.  He  deplored  its  necessity. 

The  financial  affairs  of  the  state  were  not,  however,  badly  managed. 
The  revenue  collected  during  eleven  and  one-half  months,  beginning  Aug. 
14,  1866,  and  ending  July  3 1 ,  1867,  was  $626,518.  The  expenditures  dur 
ing  the  same  period  were  $625,151. 

It  has  been  stated  that  Texas  was  a  part  of  the  Fifth  military  district.  Of 
this  district  General  Sheridan  was  the  commander.  His  headquarters  were 
at  New  Orleans.  Gen.  Charles  Griffin  was  placed  in  command  of  the  sub- 
district  of  Texas.  His  headquarters  were  at  Galveston.  On  the  i5th  of 
April,  1867,  General  Griffin  issued  an  order  announcing  that,  under  the  acts 
of  Congress  of  March  2d  and  March  23d,  he  was  required  to  protect  all  per 
sons  in  their  rights  of  person  and  property ;  to  suppress  insurrection,  dis 
order  and  violence  ;  and  to  punish,  or  cause  to  be  punished,  all  disturbers  of 
the  public  peace  and  other  criminals.  Jurisdiction  of  offenses,  he  said, 
might  be  taken  by  the  local  civil  authorities,  but  where  it  was  evident  that 
the  tribunals  would  not  impartially  try  cases  brought  before  them,  the  imme 
diate  military  commander  was  to  arrest,  or  cause  to  be  arrested,  the  offenders 
and  criminals,  hold  them  in  confinement,  and  present  their  cases  in  writing 
to  headquarters,  with  a  view  to  have  the  parties  brought  before,  and  tried  by, 
a  military  commission. 

General  Griffin  also  announced  that  he  was  empowered  to  fill  vacancies  in 


SHERIDAN  AND  HANCOCK  IN  TEXAS.  573 

executive  offices,  and  that  no  elections  would  be  allowed  under  the  existing 
government  of  the  state.  In  June,  the  policemen  of  Galveston  were  removed. 
The  general  sent  a  list  of  twenty-five  names  to  the  mayor,  with  authority  to 
select  his  policemen  from  it.  Five  of  the  persons  named  were  colored.  As 
an  officer  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  the  commander  of  the  district  issued  an 
order  in  July  declaring  that  accounts  against  freedmen  would  not  be  allowed 
to  constitute  a  lien  upon  their  portion  of  the  crop..  This  must  be  regarded 
as  a  legislative  order.  General  Griffin  thus  assumed  the  office  of  law-giver 
as  well  as  the  executive  and  judicial  offices.  The  wisdom  of  this  military 
enactment,  however,  may  well  be  doubted.  The  effect  of  it  must  have  been 
to  make  the  planters  hesitate  about  giving  credit  to  their  employes,  even  for 
necessaries.  The  position  of  a  state  judge  under  this  military  supervision 
was  not  an  enviable  one.  He  had  taken  an  oath  to  hear  and  determine 
causes  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  the  state,  while  he  was  required  by  the 
military  commander  to  conform  his  rulings  to  the  recent  acts  of  Congress,  or 
the  military  understanding  of  those  acts. 

On  the  3oth  of  July,  General  Sheridan  issued  an  order  removing  J.  W. 
Throckmorton  as  governor  of  Texas.  Governor  Throckmorton  had  been  a 
severely  tried  Union  man.  He  was  and  is  among  the  manliest  of  men ; 
but  he  was  an  impediment  to  the  foolish  reconstruction  of  the  state.  Elisha 
M.  Pease  was  appointed  in  his  place.  Soon  afterwards  Edward  Dougherty, 
judge  of  the  twelfth  judicial  district,  was  removed,  and  Edward  Basse  ap 
pointed  in  his  place.  The  charge  against  Dougherty  was  that  he  denied  the 
supremacy  of  the  laws  of  Congress.  He  said  that  he  would  not  obey  them 
when  they  conflicted  with  the  laws  of  Texas.  This  was  the  old  nullification 
idea.  His  refusal  ought  to  have  been  based  on  the  unconstitutionality  of  the 
laws.  These  removals  were  followed  by  others,  including  the  comptroller, 
the  treasurer,  the  attorney-general,  and  the  commissioner  of  the  state  general 
land  office. 

General  Sheridan  was  himself  removed  from  the  command  of  the  Fifth 
district  on  the  29th  of  August.  Then  General  Hancock  was  appointed  to 
succeed  him.  This  was  a  grand  and  patriotic  relief.  It  is  beyond  praise. 
In  his  report  of  operations  while  in  command  of  the  district,  General  Sher 
idan  had  said  that  the  difficult  situation  in  which  he  had  been  placed  had 
been  rendered  still  more  difficult  by  the  apparently  open  sympathy  of  the 
President  with  the  functionaries  who  had  been  removed.  He  added:  "I 
have  been  charged  by  the  highest  authority  of  the  Nation  with  being  tyran 
nical  and  a  partisan  ;  and  I  am  not  afraid  to  say,  when  such  charges  are  made 
against  me,  that  I  feel  in  my  heart  they  are  untruthful."  These  were  bold 
words  for  an  army  officer  to  utter  about  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
The  gallant  army  officer  had  Congress  at  his  back ;  and  he  had  as  much 
effrontery  in  civil  affairs  as  of  well-won  fame  in  military  conduct.  General 
Hancock  had  also  military  fame,  but  he  had  had  a  different  civil  education. 


574  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  registration  of  voters  under  the  Reconstruction  act  resulted  in  giving 
59^33  white  voters  and  49,497  colored  voters.  The  conservatives  had  in 
their  state  convention  advised  by  resolution,  that  all  white  men  who  were 
qualified  should  register  and  vote  against  a  convention.  Their  great  object 
was  to  defeat  negro  suffrage.  In  this  hope  they  were  disappointed.  Of  the 
54,388  votes  that  were  polled  on  the  question  of  calling  a  convention,  43, 141 
were  for  it,  and  only  11,246  against  it.  The  convention  consisted  of  ninety 
members,  of  whom  nine  were  colored.  About  the  same  number  of  whites 
were  Democrats,  all  the  others  being  Republicans.  But  the  Republicans 
were  soon  divided  into  conservatives  and  radicals.  Andrew  J.  Hamilton, 
President  Johnson's  provisional  governor,  was  at  the  head  of  the  conserva 
tives.  His  brother,  Morgan  Hamilton,  was  at  the  head  of  the  radicals. 
E.  J.  Davis  was  elected  president  of  the  convention.  Provisional  Governor 
Pease  volunteered  a  message  to  the  convention,  suggesting  certain  features 
of  the  proposed  constitution.  Among  these  was  a  declaration  that  the  act  of 
secession  was  void  ab  initio.  One  would  naturally  suppose  that  this  sug 
gestion  would  have  been  adopted  almost  without  debate  in  a  body  composed 
of  eighty  Republicans  and  only  ten  secession  Democrats ;  but  yet,  after  a 
protracted  discussion,  it  was  rejected.  In  the  North  Carolina  convention  of 
1865,  which  was  held  under  old  Whig  auspices,  and  without  there  being  a 
Republican  in  the  body,  this  identical  declaration  —  that  the  act  of  secession 
was  void  ab  initio  —  was  adopted  as  an  ordinance,  and  it  was  ratified  by  a 
popular  majority  of  over  twenty  thousand.  But  the  old  Whigs  of  North 
Carolina  had  been  schooled  for  generations  in  the  principles  of  the  Consti 
tution.  The  neophyte  Republicans  of  Texas  were  only  whitewashed,  or 
blackwashed,  secessionists,  who  were  willing  to  take  on  any  color  for  the 
sake  of  office. 

Governor  Pease  also  called  the  attention  of  the  convention  to  the  preva 
lence  of  crime  in  the  state.  He  declared  that  it  was  never  before  so  formid 
able.  He  stated  that  organized  bands  of  lawless  men  were  committing  mur 
ders  and  violations  of  law,  and  were  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  country.  The 
convention  appointed  a  special  committee  to  investigate  the  subject.  That 
committee  made  a  unanimous  report.  It  stated  its  information,  which  had 
been  obtained  from  the  records  of  the  state  department  and  of  the  Freed- 
men's  Bureau,  as  well  as  from  the  sworn  statements  of  individuals.  Exclud 
ing  from  its  statistics  cases  of  assault  with  intent  to  kill,  rapes,  robberies, 
whippings  of  freedmen,  and  other  outrages,  and  confining  its  inquiries  to 
homicides  committed  between  the  close  of  the  war  and  the  ist  of  June,  1868, 
the  frightful  summary  was  :  Total  number  of  whites  killed,  470  ;  total  number 
of  freedmen  killed,  429 ;  number  of  persons  killed  whose  race  was  un 
known,  forty;  —  making  a  grand  total  of  939  homicides.  There  were  460 
whites  and  373  freedmen,  total  833,  killed  by  whites,  and  ten  whites  and 


TEXAS  ASSERTS  HER  CONSTITUTIONAL  RIGHTS.  575 

forty-eight  freedmen,  total   fifty-eight,  killed  by  freedmen ;    and  forty-eight 
killed  by  parties  whose  race  was  unknown. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  eighty  of  the  ninety  members  composing  the  con 
vention  were  Republicans,  the  following  statement  of  the  committee  must 
be  regarded  as  extraordinary  :  "  There  is  absolute  freedom  of  speech  in  very 
few  localities  in  Texas.  Union  men  dare  not  generally  avow  their  political 
convictions.  In  many  places  they  can  hold  public  meetings  only  when  sup 
ported  by  troops  or  armed  men  ;  and  in  many  others  they  dare  not  hold  them 
at  all.  The  dominant  rebel  element  will  not  tolerate  free  discussion."  It 
must  be  regarded  as  remarkable  that  an  oppressed  and  brow-beaten  party,  to 
whom  free  discussion  was  not  allowed,  could  yet  carry  the  election  by  ten  to 
one  against  their  oppressors !  There  were  ten  thousand  more  whites  than 
colored  men  registered.  Under  such  circumstances,  one  would  naturally  have 
expected  the  whites,  or  Democrats,  to  defeat  the  convention  project.  At 
the  same  time,  they  could  have  elected  a  majority  of  the  delegates.  They 
had  resolved,  in  their  state  convention,  to  accomplish  this  result ;  but,  in 
spite  of  the  terrorism  which  they  are  said  to  have  exercised,  they  polled  only 
about  one-fourth  as  many  votes  against  the  convention  as  were  polled  for  it, 
and  they  elected  only  nine  delegates  out  of  the  ninety. 

The  constitution  adopted  by  the  convention  in  December,  1868,  was  lib 
eral.  It  made  suffrage  universal.  It  contained  no  proscriptive  clause  on  ac 
count  of  secession  and  rebellion.  In  the  clauses  providing  for  general  edu 
cation  there  was  no  requirement  that  the  two  races  should  attend  the  same 
schools,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  legislature  was  authorized  to  establish  a 
complete  system  of  education  adapted  to  the  circumstances  and  wants  of  the 
people  of  the  state.  The  Bill  of  Rights  repudiated  nullification  and  seces 
sion  as  heresies.  It  declared  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  be  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land.  It  also  recognized  the  equality  of  all  persons  be 
fore  the  law.  It  forbade  the  importation  of  persons  under  the  name  of 
coolies.  It  declared  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  should 
ever  exist  in  the  state. 

The  state  constitution  which  was  subsequently  adopted  in  1876,  substituted 
for  these  clauses  the  following :  "  Texas  is  a  free  and  independent  state,  sub 
ject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  maintenance  of 
our  free  institutions  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  depend  upon  the  pre 
servation  of  the  right  of  local  self-government  unimpaired  to  all  the  states." 
The  clauses  in  the  constitution  of  1868  which  asserted  the  equality  of  all  men 
before  the  law  and  declared  that  slavery  should  never  exist  in  the  state,  were 
rejected  or  thrust  out  of  the  new  constitution.  It  is  true  that  the  right  of 
suffrage  was  secured  to  all,  and  that  the  rights  of  citizens  were  affirmed  in 
general  terms,  and  therefore  were  logically  assured  to  all  citizens.  But  it  is 
also  true  that  slavery  was  not  recognized  in  any  of  the  constitutions  of  the 


576  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

original  thirteen  states.  Texas,  as  a  member  of  the  American  Union,  cannot 
re-establish  slavery,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  state  constitution  to  prevent 
her  doing  so  if  ante-bellum  precedents  are  to  be  followed. 

The  constitution  of  1868  was  adopted  on  the  3oth  of  November,  1869,  by 
a  vote  of  72,395  for  it,  and  of  only  4,928  against  it.  At  the  same  election 
Edmund  J.  Davis,  the  radical  Republican  candidate,  was  elected  governor 
over  Andrew  J.  Hamilton,  the  conservative  Republican  candidate,  by  a  ma 
jority  of  783  in  a  total  vote  of  79,338.  The  Democratic  candidate  for  the 
governorship,  Mr.  Stewart,  received  only  445  votes.  The  legislature  was 
Republican  in  both  branches — seventeen  radicals  and  thirteen  conservatives 
in  the  senate,  and  fifty  radicals  and  forty  conservatives  in  the  house. 

The  radical  wing  of  the  Republican  party  made  strenuous  efforts  to  ac 
complish  the  disfranchisement  of  a  large  portion  of  the  whites,  but  in  this 
they  were  defeated  by  the  conservative  wing  of  the  party.  Gen.  J.  J.  Rey 
nolds,  the  commander  of  the  district,  gave  his  hearty  co-operation  to  the 
radicals,  and,  laying  aside  the  character  of  an  impartial  military  commander 
or  governor,  and  departing  from  his  simple  duty,  which  was  to  preserve  the 
peace  and  order  of  society  while  the  people  were  engaged  in  framing  a  con 
stitution,  he  became  an  active  partisan  and  the  leader  of  the  most  ultra  of  the 
two  Republican  factions.  On  September  4,  1869,  he  wrote  a  long  letter  to 
General  Grant,  giving  his  ideas  upon  the  political  situation  in  Texas.  In 
this  letter  he  arraigns  Mr.  A.  J.  Hamilton  on  the  charge  of  having  conspired 
with  the  Democrats  to  defeat  the  radical  wing  of  the  party.  He  states  many 
facts  as  conclusive  proof  of  the  charge.  Among  the  very  unpopular  schemes 
of  the  radicals  was  the  division  of  the  state.  This  found  few  friends. 

When  it  is  considered  that  the  whites,  nearly  all  of  them  anti-Republicans, 
constituted  a  large  majority  of  the  voters,  and  that  the  Republicans  were 
nearly  equally  divided  into  two  factions,  it  must  be  regarded  as  remarkable 
that  the  radical  wing  of  the  Republicans  should  have  won  the  day  in  the 
elections.  Such  a  strange  result  can  only  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the 
military  commander,  with  the  army  and  President  Grant  at  his  back,  gave 
his  powerful  support  to  the  triumphant  faction. 

Although  under  the  new  constitution,  all  male  citizens  over  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  excepting  idiots,  the  insane,  and  convicted  felons,  were  declared 
to  be  voters,  all  the  classes  that  were  excluded  by  act  of  Congress  from 
voting  for  delegates  to  the  convention  were  also  excluded  by  order  of  General 
Reynolds  from  voting  for  governor,  state  officials,  legislature,  and  congress 
men.  By  this  fraudulent  arrangement  nearly  thirty  thousand  Texans  wrere 
denied  their  constitutional  rights.  There  was,  therefore,  no  valid  election. 
The  person  claiming  to  be  elected  governor  wras  not  the  governor.  The 
pretended  legislature  was  not  a  legislature.  The  pretended  congressmen 
were  not  entitled  to  seats  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 


TEXAS  ADMITTED  TO  REPRESENTATION  IN  CONGRESS.        577 

The  legislature  thus  chosen  met  on  the  36  of  February,  1870.  It  elected 
J.  W.  Flanagan,  radical  Republican,  to  fill  the  term  in  the  United  States 
Senate  which  would  expire  on  the  3d  of  March,  1875.  Mr.  Flanagan  is 
noted  as  an  outspoken  spoilsman.  It  elected  Morgan  C.  Hamilton  for  the 
full  senatorial  term,  to  commence  March  4,  1871.  But  the  next  session  of 
the  same  body,  which  met  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1871,  proceeded  to 
hold  another  election  to  fill  the  full  senatorial  term,  on  the  ground  that  the 
election  of  M.  C.  Hamilton  at  the  former  session  was  illegal  —  that  not  being 
the  session  next  preceding  the  vacancy,  which  the  act  of  Congress  required. 
This  constitutional  after-thought,  as  the  result  showed,  proceeded  from  the 
headquarters  of  the  Fifth  military  district.  Gen.  J.  J.  Reynolds,  who  had 
given  such  material  assistance  to  the  radical  faction  both  in  Washington  and 
in  Texas,  was  chosen  in  place  of  Hamilton  ;  but  the  United  States  Senate 
rejected  his  claim.  It  seated  Hamilton. 

The  state  was  re-admitted  to  representation  in  Congress  on  the  3Oth  of 
March,  1870,  by  the  act  of  Congress  approved  on  that  day,  upon  the  same 
terms  as  those  prescribed  for  the  states  of  Virginia  and  Mississippi. 

The  following  statement  in  regard  to  the  public  debt  of  Texas  is  taken 
from  the  Poland  report  of  1872:  In  1860,  there  was  no  public  debt;  in 
1861,  the  debt  was  $328,866;  the  Confederate  debt  was  $362,866;  in 
1871,  October  ist,  it  was  $454,887;  the  floating  debt  was  $917,878;  and 
the  prospective  liabilities  were  $11,500,000. 

According  to  the  minority  report  of  the  same  committee,  quoting  the 
comptroller's  report,  the  debt  was  not  less  than  three  millions.  The  debt 
and  liabilities  were  stated  at  seventeen  millions.  The  taxation  imposed  in 
1871  was  stated  by  the  tax-payers'  convention  at  $5,361,000.  In  1875,  the 
bonded  and  floating  debt  was  stated  on  official  authority  to  be  $4,721,914, 
besides  claims  on  the  state,  of  doubtful  validity,  amounting  to  $829,687. 
As  the  Democrats,  or  white  people,  of  Texas  had  at  that  time,  1872,  come 
permanently  into  power,  the  work  of  reconstruction  in  that  state  may  be 
considered  as  having  then  come  to  an  end. 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  ANDREW  JOHNSON. 

SPRING  OF  1865  -  SURRENDER  AT  APPOMATTOX  —  SECOND  INAUGURATION  OF 
PRESIDENT  LINCOLN  —  SCENE  IN  FORD'S  THEATRE  —  THE  ASSASSINATION  — 
JOHNSON'S  ACCESSION  —  PRELIMINARIES  TO  IMPEACHMENT  —  GROUNDS  FOR 
THE  IMPEACHMENT  — MAJORITY  REPORT  OF  JUDICIARY  COMMITTEE  -  PRE 
TEXTS  FOR  IMPEACHMENT  —  DISMISS AL  OF  ST ANTON  —  ALLEGED  CONSPIR 
ACY  BETWEEN  GEN.  LORENZO  THOMAS  AND  THE  PRESIDENT— IS  "SWING 
ING  ROUND  THE  CIRCLE"  A  MISDEMEANOR? —  THE  SENATE  AS  A  COURT  — 
INSTANCES  OF  IMPEACHMENT  —  SPLENDID  ARRAY  OF  COUNSEI ATTORNEY- 
GENERAL  STANBERY— THE  EXCITEMENT  AND  VOTE— MINOR  HISTORY  OF  THE 
TRIAL  —  DOUBTFUL  SENATORS—  MR.  WARDEN'S  RECITAL—  SENATOR  GRIMES 
AND  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON— MEET  WTITH  REVERDY  JOHNSON— SENATOR  HEN 
DERSON'S  DOUBTFUL  VOTE— THE  AUTHOR'S  PART  — DAY  BREAKS  FOR  THE 
PRESIDENT. 

IT  is  two  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  Palm  Sunday  on  the  9th  of  April  r 
1865,  that  the  two  great  generals  of  the  respective  armies  which  have 
been  confronting  each  other  for  four  years  meet  in  the  parlor  of  William 
McLean,  at  Appomattox  Court  House.       General    Grant  proposes  in 
the  form  of  a  military  note  the  terms  of  surrender.     They  are  discussed  and 
settled.     General  Lee  returns  a  formal  answer.     The  rolls  of  officers  and 
men  are  to  be  made  in  duplicate.     The  officers  are  to  give  their  parole  not 
to  take  up  arms  against  the  government  of  the  United  States  until  properly 
exchanged.     Each  company  or  regimental  commander  is  to  sign  a  like  parole 
for  the  men  of  his  command.       The  arms  and  property  are  to  be  parked 
and  stacked,  and  transferred  to  the  officers  appointed  to  receive  them.     The 
side-arms  of  the  officers,  and  their  private  horses  and  baggage  are  not  em 
braced  in  this  stipulation.     The  surrender  is  made.     Then  the  men  return 
home.      They  are  not  to  be  disturbed  by  the  United  States  authorities  so 
long  as  they  observe  their  parole  and  the  laws  in  force  where  they  reside. 

A  pathetic  account  is  given  by  an  eye-witness  of  the  farewell  between 
General  Lee  and  the  weather-beaten  officers  whom  he  had  commanded 
through  the  long  and  weary  years  of  the  war.  As  to  the  silent,  poignant 


JEFFERSON  DAVIS'  ARREST  AND  RELEASE.  579 

parting  of  these  veterans,  the  statements  cannot  be  exaggerated.  It  was  be 
yond  all  description  beautiful,  touching,  sympathetic,  and  chivalric.  Much 
apocryphal  writing  has  been  published,  however,  about  the  capture  of  ex- 
President  Davis  with  a  few  friends,  near  the  village  of  Erwinsville,  by  Gen 
eral  Wilson's  cavalry  on  the  roth  of  May.  Much  discussion  also  was  had  at 
the  time  about  his  imprisonment  in  Fortress  Monroe.  There  he  was  kept 
in  confinement  until  May,  1867.  We  know  what  followed.  He  was  taken 
from  this  bastile  to  be  tried  on  the  charge  of  treason.  Such  men  as  Charles 
O'Conor  and  Horace  Greeley  were  willing  to  be  his  bondsmen  and  his  ad 
visors.  For  a  year  and  a  half  the  cause  remained  upon  the  docket.  It  was 
finally  dismissed. 

The  Presidential  election  of  1864  was  a  foregone  conclusion  ;  not  because 
the  Democratic  candidates,  General  McClellan  and  George  H.  Pendleton, 
were  not  representatives  of  the  best  thought  of  the  peace-loving  Union 
devotees  ;  but  because  the  Confederacy  was  on  the  eve  of  a  collapse.  The 
downfall  of  the  Confederacy  was  presaged.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  chosen  for 
a  second  term.  Andrew  Johnson  was  elected  in  the  place  of  Hannibal 
Hamlin.  The  political  agitation  through  the  country,  however,  did  not  cease. 

On  the  4th  of  March,  1865,  President  Lincoln  was  again  inaugurated. 
The  Confederacy  did  collapse  within  a  month.  After  the  evacuation  of 
Richmond,  the  President  visits  that  city.  He  does  his  best  with  the  authori 
ties  for  reconciliation.  He  returns  to  Washington.  On  the  evening  of  the 
1 4th  of  April,  1865,  he  attends  Ford's  Theatre,  on  Tenth  Street  in  Wash 
ington,  with  his  wife  and  a  party  of  friends.  The  play  is  drawing  toward 
the  fifth  act,  when  an  actor  named  John  Wilkes  Booth  dashes  into  the  Presi 
dent's  box,  levels  a  pistol  at  his  head,  and  shoots  him  through  the  brain. 
The  assassin  then  leaps  from  the  box  to  the  stage,  and  escapes.  The  Presi 
dent  lingers  until  the  next  morning,  when  he  dies.  This  atrocious  murder 
cannot  be  reckoned  simply  as  a  homicide.  It  is  almost  equivalent  to  the 
homicide  of  a  great  people.  It  causes  consternation  and  despair.  In  the 
conspiracy  by  which  the  President  was  killed,  Lewis  Payne  (or  Powell) 
was  particeps  criminis.  He  bursts  into  the  bed-chamber  of  the  great  Sec 
retary  of  State,  William  H.  Seward.  He  springs  upon  the  couch  of  the 
sick  man  like  a  tiger  thirsting  for  blood.  He  stabs  him  almost  unto  death, 
and  escapes.  We  know  the  result  of  the  trials  which  followed, —  the  fate 
of  Payne  and  his  fellow-conspirators,  David  E.  Herold  and  George  A.  Atze- 
rodt,  and  others  inculpated,  and  the  terrible  fate  which  overtook  Mrs.  Mary 
E.  Surratt.  It  was  at  her  house  that  the  plot  was  alleged  to  have  been 
formed.  She  had  no  plea  against  the  panic  —  no  plan  offered  her  escape. 
Others  besides  herself  were  sentenced,  in  the  fury  which  ensued,  without 
much  deliberation. 

Thus  passed  away  this  prudent,  clement,  and  great  President.  The 
difficulties  of  the  South  were  magnified.  The  voice  of  lamentation  which 


580  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

went  up  in  behalf  of  the  dead  President,  as  his  body  was  borne  throughout 
the  country,  was  mingled  with  execrations,  loud  and  long,  against  the  war 
and  the  Southern  people. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  Presidential  office  was  a  most  difficult 
trust  when  Andrew  Johnson  succeeded  to  power.  A  Southern  man,  with 
intense  views  and  invincible  will,  he  soon  finds  that  he  cannot  act  in  har 
mony  with  the  extremes  of  the  Republican  party.  His  vetoes  and  the  long 
conflict  end  in  his  utter  alienation  from  the  party  which  elected  him.  Elec 
tions  turn  on  his  "  policies."  The  questions  of  amnesty  and  reconstruction 
which  had  been  uppermost  in  the  American  mind  from  Lincoln's  death  on 
the  i5th  of  April,  have  already  been  discussed.  The  moderation  of  Lincoln 
had  no  practical  revival  until  1876  ;  or  until  the  final  composition  by  the 
election  of  Grover  Cleveland  in  1884.  These  last  two  decades  constitute  a 
cycle  which  encompasses  the  greatest  events  known  to  human  history,  in 
cluding  every  form  of  crime  and  tragedy  which  has  marked  the  calendars  of 
mankind. 

Conspicuous  for  its  dramatic  interest  is  the  impeachment  trial  of  Andrew 
Johnson.  His  trial  is  a  scene  for  the  best  pencil  of  art ;  his  acquittal  an 
occasion  for  the  loudest  huzzas  of  honest  patriotism. 

Andrew  Johnson  became  the  Republican  candidate  for  the  office  of  Vice- 
President  in   1864.       This  was  partly  in  deference  to  the  honored  custom  of 
selecting  the  two  highest  officers  of  the  nation  from  different  sections  of  the 
country.     His  courageous  and   aggressive   opposition  to    secession   and   its 
consequences  had  commended  him  to  the  cordial  support  of  Northern  men. 
He  belonged  to  that  insurgent  Alleghany  range  which  did  not  bow  to  South 
Carolina.     He  would  never  have  been  thought  of  in  connection  with  that 
high  office,  but  for  the  sterling  characteristics  exhibited  by  him  as  a  defiant 
Democrat  in  Congress,  and  as  an  equally  determined  provisional  governor  of 
Tennessee.     At  his  accession  to  the  office  of  President  upon  the  death  of  Mr. 
Lincoln,  Mr.    Johnson's  mind   was    imbued   with    a   sentiment   of    rancor 
toward  the  secession  leaders.      In  this  respect,  he  differed  widely  from  his 
predecessor.      Mr.  Lincoln's  kindly  nature  was  averse  to  harsh  measures. 
His  cool  judgment  inclined  him  in  favor  of  a  generous  policy. 

But  while  Mr.  Johnson  was  at  that  time  unrelenting,  and  while  he  de 
clared  that  "  treason  must  be  made  odious,"  he  had  never  been  in  harmony 
with  the  ultra-Republicans  in  their  extreme  views.  He  differed  from  them 
radically  upon  the  two  great  questions  of  restoring  the  seceded  states  to 
their  relations  in  the  Union,  and  of  determining  the  proper  status  of  the 
colored  race  in  the  body-politic.  On  these  essential  questions  he  took  issue 
with  the  Republicans.  It  cannot  be  said  that,  in  the  course  he  pursued,  he 
was  inconsistent,  or  treacherous  to  principle.  Prior  to  the  Presidential  elec 
tion  in  1864,  the  Republicans  had  never,  as  a  party,  decided  that  the  state 
constitutions  must  be  renovated  further  than  by  the  recognition  of  emancipa- 


THE  REASON  FOR  JOHNSON'S  IMPEACHMENT.  581 

tion,  the  abrogation  of  the  slave-codes,  the  repudiation  of  all  debts,  whether 
Confederate,  state,  or  municipal,  which  had  been  contracted  in  aid  of  rebel 
lion,  and  the  renunciation  of  the  right  of  a  state  to  secede  from  the  Union. 
Even  Thaddeus  Stevens,  the  leader  of  the  house,  who  would  have  confis 
cated  the  property  of  the  whole  slave-holding  class,  hesitated  long  before 
urging  the  enfranchisement  of  the  negroes.  He  saw  that  if  that  measure 
were  enforced  upon  the  South,  consistency  would  require  its  adoption  in 
Pennsylvania.  The  Fourteenth  Amendment,  proposed  by  Congress  in  1866, 
refrained  from  enfranchising  the  negroes.  It  did  not  require  the  seceded 
states  to  enfranchise  them,  as  a  condition  of  restoration. 

The  Republicans  quarreled  with  President  Johnson,  therefore,  not  be 
cause  he  could  be  justly  charged  with  political  apostasy,  but  because  he 
failed  to  keep  step  with  the  party  in  its  march  on  the  road  of  extreme  radi 
calism.  That  party  had  an  overwhelming  majority  in  both  branches  of 
Congress.  Its  leaders  were  intolerant  of  opposition.  They  determined  to 
get  rid  of  the  President. 

A  resolution  was  accordingly  adopted  on  the  yth  of  March,  1867,  author 
izing  the  Judiciary  committee  "  to  inquire  into  the  official  conduct  of  Andrew 
Johnson,  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  discharging  the  present  duties 
of  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States." 

The  committee  were  to  report  whether  the  said  Andrew  Johnson  had 
been  guilty  of  acts  which  were  designed  or  calculated  to  corrupt  and  over 
throw  the  government,  and  whether  he  alone,  or  conspiring  with  others,  had 
been  guilty  of  acts  which  are  denominated  crimes  and  misdemeanors  by  the 
Constitution. 

Several  months  \vere  spent  by  the  committee  in  examining  witnesses  and 
collecting  testimony.  At  the  next  session  of  Congress,  in  December,  1867, 
a  majority  report  and  two  minority  reports  were  made.  That  of  the  major 
ity  was  signed  by  George  S.  Boutwell,  Francis  Thomas,  Thomas  Williams, 
William  Lawrence,  and  John  C.  Churchill,  Republicans.  They  reported  in 
favor  of  the  impeachment  of  the  President,  mainly  because  of  his  attempts  to 
reconstruct  the  seceded  states  without  calling  on  Congress  to  originate  the 
process.  There  were  other  grounds  of  impeachment  urged;  but  this  was 
the  principal  one  upon  which  the  majority  of  the  committee  relied. 

Messrs.  James  F.  Wilson,  of  Iowa,  and  Frederick  E.  Woodbridge,  of 
Vermont,  were  on  the  committee.  They  were  Republicans.  They  took 
issue  with  the  majority.  At  the  close  of  an  exhaustive  examination  of  the 
facts  and  of  the  law,  they  concluded  that  the  case  presented  no  such  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors  as  called  for  "  the  interposition  of  the  Constitu 
tional  power  of  the  House."  These  gentlemen,  however,  condemned  the 
course  pursued  by  the  President. 

Messrs.  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  of  Illinois,  and  Charles  A.  Eldridge,  of 
Wisconsin,  Democrats,  of  the  committee,  concurred  in  the  legal  conclusions 


582  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

of  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Woodbridge,  but  took  issue  with  them  in  regard  to 
the  character  of  the  President's  measures.  They  defended  his  general  course 
of  action. 

It  is  a  singular  fact,  that  in  the  articles  of  impeachment  finally  adopted  by 
the  House  of  Representatives,  the  gravest  of  the  charges  contained  in  the 
majority  report  of  the  Judiciary  committee  were  passed  over  in  silence. 
Indeed,  only  one  of  the  several  minor  charges  reported  by  that  committee 
as  grounds  of  impeachment  found  a  place  in  the  articles  on  which  the  Presi 
dent  was  arraigned.  That  committee  had  incubated  for  a  year.  The  testi 
mony  collected,  and  the  reports,  made  a  volume  of  above  twelve  hundred 
pages.  It  might  have  been  burned  as  stubble.  It  was  utterly  worthless. 

But  the  Republican  majority  of  the  House  was  not  to  be  balked  so  easily. 
It  had  its  stern  purposes.  One  of  these  was  to  get  rid  of  Andrew  Johnson  as 
President  of  the  United  States  and  to  put  Benjamin  F*  Wade,  of  Ohio,  the 
then  President  fro  tempore  of  the  Senate,  in  his  place.  They  accordingly 
made  terrible  inquisition,  in  every  sinister  way,  to  find  new  grounds  for  im 
peachment.  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  the  Secretary  of  War,  furnished  the  pretext. 
He  had  been  appointed  in  1862,  by  Mr.  Lincoln.  He  had  been  invited,  or 
permitted,  to  hold  over  by  Mr.  Johnson.  He  was  now  in  sympathy  with 
the  extremest  wing  of  the  Republicans,  although  at  the  beginning  of  the  civil 
commotion  he  was  a  secessionist  in  theory  and  in  feeling.  He  now  availed 
himself  of  the  terms  of  the  Tenure  of  Office  act,  to  disregard  the  wishes  and 
the  mandates  of  the  President.  He  assumed,  in  fact,  the  prerogatires  which 
the  Constitution  reposes  in  the  President,  as  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
Army.  An  act  was  passed  on  March  2,  1867,  in  derogation  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  for  the  purpose  of  stripping  President  Johnson  of  his  rightful  authority. 
The  purpose  of  the  act  was  to  deprive  the  President  of  the  power  to  remove 
civil  officers  without  the  consent  of  the  Senate.  The  President,  neverthe 
less,  on  Aug.  5,  1867,  sent  a  written  message  to  Mr.  Stanton,  requesting  his 
resignation.  The  latter,  contrary  to  every  precedent,  declined  compliance. 
The  President  then  suspended  him.  He  appointed  General  Grant,  the  Com 
mander  of  the  Army,  as  Secretary  ad  interim.  Stanton  had  no  alternative 
but  submission.  But  when  Congress  met,  in  December,  the  Senate  refused 
to  sanction  the  suspension. 

This  action  of  the  Senate  left  the  President  the  alternative  of  tolerating  a 
man  in  his  Cabinet  who  utterly  and  defiantly  disregarded  his  wishes,  or  of  ex 
ercising  his  undoubted  prerogative  of  removal,  which  Congress  had  attempted 
to  take  from  him.  He  chose  the  latter  course,  and  on  the  2ist  of  February, 
1868,  he  dismissed  the  recalcitrant  secretary,  and  appointed  Adjutant-General 
Lorenzo  Thomas  as  Secretary  ad  interim. 

These  events  furnished  the  majority  of  the  House  of  Representatives  with 
what  they  regarded  as  valid  grounds  of  impeachment.  They  had  passed  an 
unconstitutional  statute.  The  President  had  disregarded  it.  On  the  24th  of 


IMPEACHMENT  PRECEDENTS.  583 

February,  1868,  James  M.  Ashley,  of  Ohio,  a  member  of  that  body,  pre 
sented  eleven  articles  of  impeachment,  for  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 
The  foregoing  facts  connected  with  the  suspension  and  removal  of  Stanton, 
and  the  appointment  of  Adjutant-General  Thomas  as  Secretary  ad  interim, 
constituted  the  warp  and  woof  of  nine  of  the  eleven  articles,  and  a  part  of 
one  other.  Among  the  charges  was  that  of  a  conspiracy  between  the  Presi 
dent  and  General  Thomas.  It  is  surprising  that  the  astute  authors  of  the 
-articles  failed  to  perceive  that  the  same  charge  of  conspiracy  was  equally  ap 
plicable  to  General  Grant,  who  had  served  as  ad  interim  Secretary  under 
like  appointment.  The  tenth  and  eleventh  articles  founded  charges  of  mis 
demeanor  upon  certain  extracts,  which  they  recited  from  out-of-door  speeches 
made  by  the  President  to  the  people  of  Washington,  Cleveland,  and  St. 
Louis.  The  country  well  remembers  Mr.  Johnson's  escapade  in  1867,  in 
company  with  his  Cabinet.  It  was  known  as  "  swinging  round  the  circle." 
It  was  while  on  that  somewhat  extraordinary  "  Progress  "  that  he  indulged  in 
some  wretched  rhetoric  at  the  expense  of  the  majorities  in  the  two  houses  of 
Congress.  The  speeches  were  doubtless  in  questionable  taste.  They  may 
have  been  unbecoming  a  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  United  States,  but  the 
historian  does  not  style  them  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.  These  ill- 
tempered  speeches  of  the  President  constituted  the  only  link  between  the  long 
array  of  impeachable  offenses  set  forth  by  the  Judiciary  committee  in  De 
cember,  1867,  and  the  eleven  articles  sent  up  by  the  House  two  months  later. 
The  House  was  searching  for  a  pretext.  They  found  one.  The  Spanish 
maxim  has  it — "If  you  want  to  kill  your  dog,  say  he  eats  iron."  There 
was  no  lack  of  excuses  for  this  trial. 

The  House  having  resolved  to  impeach  the  President  of  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors  at  any  rate,  the  fact  was  communicated  to  the  Senate.  The 
latter  body  at  once  began  preparations  for  the  momentous  duty.  It  was 
necessary,  pending  the  trial,  for  the  Senate  to  lay  aside  its  legislative  func 
tions,  and  to  resolve  itself  into  a  court  of  justice,  after  the  manner  of  the 
House  of  Lords  in  England  when  a  peer  is  to  be  tried  for  any  offense.  In 
that  country  peers  of  the  realm  are  only  triable  by  the  House  of  Lords, 
whether  for  treason  or  other  crimes.  In  this  country,  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  and  also  the  senates  of  the  several  states,  are  vested  with  ju 
dicial  authority  for  the  trial  of  cases  of  treason,  malfeasance,  and  misfeasance 
of  the  higher  officials. 

Only  four  or  five  impeachment  cases  have  thus  far  been  brought  before 
the  United  States  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  justice.  The  first  was  that  of 
a  Senator  from  Tennessee,  William  Blount,  in  the  year  1797.  A  very  sus 
picious  letter  from  him  to  an  Indian  agent  in  East  Tennessee  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  government.  It  was  communicated  to  Congress  by  the  Presi 
dent,  John  Adams.  It  clearly  indicated  that  an  intrigue  was  on  foot,  in 
which  Blount,  in  conspiracy  with  agents  of  the  British  Government,  was  en- 


584  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

deavoring  to  alienate  the  Indians  from  their  allegiance  to  this  country.  His 
latent  purposes  were  never  fully  developed,  but  the  correspondence  leaves  no 
doubt  that  he  was  engaged  in  a  base  and  unpatriotic,  if  not  treasonable  con 
spiracy.  The  charge  was  :  Conspiracy  with  Great  Britain  to  wrest  Florida 
and  Louisiana  from  Spain.  He  was  impeached  by  the  House,  July  17,  1797. 
The  Senate  made  preparations  for  his  trial.  He  was  first  suspended,  or 
"sequestered,"  as  the  phrase  was,  and  required  to  give  security  for  his  ap 
pearance  before  the  impeachment  court.  But  before  the  case  was  determined 
the  Senate  expelled  him.  Subsequently,  on  the  nth  of  February,  1799,  the 
senatorial  court  decided  that  a  Senator  is  not  an  officer  of  the  government, 
and  therefore  not  impeachable.  This  first  experiment  of  converting  one 
branch  of  Congress  into  a  grand  jury  and  the  other  into  a  court  of  justice 
was  found  to  be  an  immensely  tedious  and  expensive  business. 

The  second  case  of  impeachment  was  that  of  United  States  District 
Judge  Pickering,  of  New  Hampshire.  In  1804,  he  was  impeached  on  charges 
of  corruptly  releasing  a  vessel  without  requiring  a  bond.  The  vessel  had 
been  seized  for  smuggling.  He  was  also  accused  of  drunkenness,  and  the 
use  of  indecent  language  while  on  the  bench.  These  offenses  were  commit 
ted  in  1802.  The  articles  were  four  in  number,  and  he  was  convicted  on 
each  of  them  in  March,  1804,  and  removed  from  office. 

The  next  case  of  impeachment  was  that  of  Judge  Samuel  Chase.  He 
was  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  He  was  a  signer 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  He  represented  his  native  State  of 
Maryland.  He  was  a  Revolutionary  patriot  of  the  most  radical  and  deter 
mined  character.  But  in  the  division  of  the  people  into  parties,  he  be 
came  a  Federalist,  as  pronounced  and  aggressive  as  he  had  been  as  a  Whig 
in  the  struggle  with  Great  Britain.  He  sat  on  the  trial,  in  the  Circuit  Court 
of  Pennsylvania,  of  one  Fries,  charged  with  treason  in  the  whiskey  rebellion, 
and  of  Callender,  a  Republican  or  Democratic  editor,  indicted  under  the 
sedition  act.  The  latter  was  charged  with  having  libeled  President  Adams. 
Judge  Chase  allowed  himself  to  be  betrayed,  as  was  alleged,  into  the  use  of 
violent  language  while  conducting  these  trials.  His  conduct  was  unbecoming 
the  bench.  John  Randolph,  of  Roanoke,  in  1804,  then  a  member  of  the 
House,  introduced  resolutions  of  impeachment.  They  were  adopted.  Ran 
dolph  became  chairman  of  the  managing  committee.  He  was  associated  with 
able  lawyers — members  of  the  House.  Judge  Chase  was  an  able  jurist. 
He  employed  some  of  the  most  eminent  members  of  the  bar  as  his  counsel. 
Robert  Goodloe  Harper,  of  Baltimore,  was  his  leading  counsel. 

The  trial  ran  through  many  weeks.  The  arguments  were  elaborate  and 
able.  They  were  published,  with  the  testimony,  in  two  volumes.  The 
respondent  was  acquitted.  On  five  of  the  eight  articles,  a  majority  of  the 
court  voted  not  guilty. 

Judge  Peck,  of  the  United   States  District  Court  of  Missouri,  was  im- 


THE  IMPEACHMENT  MANAGERS.  585 

peached  in  the  year  1826,  on  charges  similar  to  those  in  the  case  of  Judge 
Samuel  Chase.  The  case  was  one  of  great  and  general  interest  in  those 
"  piping  times  of  peace."  It  happened  also  that  some  of  the  most  eminent 
names  in  the  history  of  the  country  were  connected  with  the  trial.  William 
Wirt  was  of  his  counsel.  Daniel  Webster,  John  M.  Clayton,  Edward  Liv 
ingston,  George  R.  Poindexter,  Felix  Grundy,  Hugh  Lawson  White,  and 
John  Forsyth,  as  Senators,  sat  as  judges.  Mr.  Benton,  though  a  Senator, 
was  called  as  a  witness,  and  therefore  could  not  sit  as  a  judge.  The 
respondent  was  acquitted  by  a  vote  of  twenty-two  to  twenty-one. 

In  1862,  the  United  States  District  Judge  of  Tennessee,  West  W.  Hum 
phreys,  was  impeached  for  advocating  secession  in  a  public  speech  at  Nash 
ville,  Dec.  29,  1860  ;  for  openly  supporting  and  advocating  the  Tennessee 
ordinance  of  secession  ;  $br  giving  aid  in  organizing  armed  rebellion  ;  for  con 
spiracy  with  Jefferson  Davis  ;  for  neglecting  and  refusing  to  hold  the  United 
States  District  Court ;  and  for  acting  as  a  Confederate  judge,  and  as  such, 
sentencing  men  to  banishment  and  imprisonment,  confiscating  property  of 
loyal  owners,  and  especially,  the  property  of  "  one  Andrew  Johnson  ;  "  and 
arresting  and  imprisoning  "one  William  G.  Brownlow."  He  was  convicted 
on  each  of  these  charges  except  that  of  confiscating  Johnson's  property.  He 
was  not  present  at  the1  trial ;  it  was  somewhat  of  a  fiasco,  as  a  grave  per 
formance.  It  was  the  first  trial  of  the  kind  which  the  writer  had  seen. 

But  by  far  the  most  celebrated  case  which  this  country  has  witnessed,  was 
that  of  President  Johnson.  It  could  not  result  in  shpdding  the  President's 
blood.  It  could  not  eventuate  in  decapitation,  as  in  the  cases  of  Charles  I. 
and  Louis  XVI.  ;  but  no  event  in  the  history  of  the  Republic,  unless  it  be  a 
great  rebellion,  can  be  compared  in  importance  to  the  removal  of  the  chief 
magistrate  of  such  a  nation  by  impeachment.  The  impeachment  resolution 
was  adopted  by  the  House  on  Monday,  Feb.  24,  1868.  On  the  following 
Monday,  March  3,  the  articles  of  impeachment  were  agreed  upon.  On 
Wednesday,  the  5th,  they  were  presented  to  the  Senate  by  the  managers, 
Messrs.  John  A.  Bingham,  of  Ohio  ;  George  S.  Boutwell,  of  Massachusetts  ; 
James  F.  Wilson,  of  Iowa  ;  John  A.  Logan,  of  Illinois  ;  Thomas  Williams, 
of  Pennsylvania ;  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts ;  and  Thadcleus 
Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Bingham,  the  chairman,  read  the  articles. 

Each  of  these  names  is  well  known.  ,  Judge  Bingham,  of  Ohio,  was  a 
member  of  Congress  of  rare  elocution.  He  lacked  the  reasoning  faculty,  but 
he  could,  as  Thaddeus  Stevens  used  to  say  in  his  sarcastic  way,  appeal  to  the 
"gathered  wisdom  of  a  thousand  years,"  in  his  references  to  Anglo-Saxon 
privilege  and  prerogative  with  more  frequency  than  any  orator  known  in  the 
history  of  that  race.  He  has  been  Minister  to  Japan  since  he  left  Congress. 
The  remark  is  constantly  made  about  him,  that  he  never  lied  once  during  the 
Credit  Mobilier  investigations,  but  rather  gloried  in  his  frank  admissions, 
and  hence  that  he  is  without  reproach.  Governor  Boutwell  has  a  keen,  care- 
37 


586  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ful,  analytic  mind.  His  life  in  low  estate  began,  but  he  rose  by  his  intrinsic 
virtue  and  energy  to  the  highest  position  in  the  grandest  convocation  of  polit 
ical  scientists  which  this  country  has  ever  seen.  The  writer  means  the 
Massachusetts  Constitutional  Convention  of  1850,  which  contained  such  men 
as  Governor  Briggs,  Rufus  Choate,  George  S.  Milliard,  Benjamin  F.  Hal- 
lett,  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  Chief  Justice  Shaw,  Marcus  Morton,  and  others 
equally  great  and  gifted.  But,  for  the  consummation  of  their  work, —  after 
their  magnificent  discussions  and  wise  determinations,  —  the  convention 
named  George  S.  Boutwell.  He  crowned  the  work  by  an  industry  that  was 
incessant  and  with  a  code  that  was  superb. 

One  of  the  other  managers  of  this  impeachment  was  the  present  Senator 
from  Iowa,  James  F.  Wilson.  He  survives  as  a  man  of  indefatigable  and 
admirable  legal  ability.  He  is  as  fresh  in  vital  force  as  when  he  argued 
these  questions  so  fatefully  pregnant  to  our  land.  Another  manager  was 
Thomas  Williams,  of  Pittsburgh,  a  lawyer  of  the  ancient  kind,  who  would 
have  been  selected  as  a  chief  solicitor  to  the  Crown,  had  he  lived  under  royal 
auspices  when  great  crimes  were  committed  and  defenses  were  needed.  He 
was  acquainted  with  all  the  precedents.  Of  Generals  Logan  and  Butler,  and 
of  Thaddeus  Stevens  it  is  not  necessary  to  speak.  Their  appearance  was  a 
sign  that  no  omission  would  be  made  in  the  presentation  of  the  case  in  all  its 
salient  and  vindictive  features. 

The  Senate  adopted  rules  of  proceeding  and  practice,  twenty-four  in 
number,  for  the  government  of  the  court.  But  when  that  august  body  con 
vened  on  Friday,  the  5th  of  March,  Chief  Justice  Chase,  whose  office  it  was 
to  preside,  suggested  that  it  was  appropriate  for  the  court  to  adopt  its  own 
rules  ;  and  thereupon  the  Senators,  acting  in  their  judicial  capacity,  formally 
adopted  the  rules  which  they  had  agreed  upon  when  acting  in  their  legisla 
tive  capacity.  Each  Senator,  as  well  as  the  Chief  Justice,  was  required  to 
swear,  or  affirm,  that  in  all  things  appertaining  to  the  trial  of  the  impeach 
ment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  he  would  do  impartial  justice,  according  to  the 
Constitution  and  the  laws.  Mr.  Justice  Nelson,  of  the  Supreme  Court,  first 
administered  the  oath  to  the  Chief  Justice,  after  which  the  latter  administered 
the  same  oath  to  each  of  the  Senators,  except  Mr.  Wade,  of  Ohio,  whose 
right  to  sit  on  the  case  was  challenged.  Subsequently,  however,  for  some 
reason,  the  challenge  was  withdrawn,  and  Mr.  Wade,  who  would  have  been 
made  President  by  the  conviction  of  Mr.  Johnson,  voted  with  the  majority, 
uniformly,  upon  preliminary  questions,  and  finally  upon  the  articles.  On  the 
latter  his  vote  was  that  the  respondent  was  guilty. 

The  court  thus  constituted  sat,  of  course,  in  the  Senate  Chamber.  It  was 
opened  by  proclamation  of  the  sergeant-at-arms  in  the  usual  manner,  on  the 
i3th  of  March.  That  officer  was  directed  by  the  Chief  Justice  to  command 
perfect  silence.  The  galleries  were  crowded  to  suffocation  with  spectators, 
Not  a  seat  was  left  vacant,  nor  a  foot  of  standing-room.  The  managers  on 


ATTORNEY-GENERAL  STANBERY.  587 

one  side,  and  the  counsel  for  the  respondent,  Messrs.  Henry  Stanbery,  Ben 
jamin  R.  Curtis,  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  William  M.  Evarts,  and  Thomas  A. 
R.  Nelson,  on  the  other,  were  assigned  seats  around  the  clerk's  desk. 
These  gentlemen  had  qualities  equal  to  those  of  the  managers.  Of  Judge 
Nelson,  of  Tennessee,  it  is  unnecessary  to  speak,  except  to  say  that  he  was 
the  least  in  experience  before  the  Senate.  Unexpectedly  to  some,  but  not  to 
the  writer,  William  S.  Groesbeck,  of  Ohio,  who  was  not  at  first  in  the  case, 
was  the  most  successful  in  presenting,  with  enormous  vehemence  of  logic 
and  eloquence,  the  defense  of  the  impeached  President.  This  might  not 
have  been  said,  had  Mr.  Henry  Stanbery  been  in  his  usual  health.  Nor 
could  this  have  been  said,  had  not  Judge  Jeremiah  S.  Black  retired  from  the 
case  on  an  unfortunate  dispute  about  a  guano  island,  which  involved  the 
learned  judge  and  the  President  in  an  infragrant  disputation.  Nor  cam  it 
hardly  be  said,  in  comparison  with  the  exhaustive  forensic  effort  of  the  pres 
ent  Senator  from  New- York,  William  M.  Evarts.  Besides,  for  clear  state 
ment  with  pure  diction,  Benjamin  R.  Curtis,  of  Boston,  bears  a  palm  rarely 
awarded  to  an  advocate  in  any  forum.  Such  an  association  of  legal  learning 
and  extraordinary  graces  of  eloquence  was  not  summoned  for  ordinary 
efforts.  A  French  author  has  said  that  in  the  eulogy  of  the  dead,  and  in  de 
fense  of  great  criminals,  the  greatest  marvels  of  oratory  have  been  exhibited. 
But  Andrew  Johnson  was  neither  dead  nor  culpable.  His  trial,  neverthe 
less,  was  a  superlative  opportunity  for  the  advocate. 

First  among  these  advocates  was  Mr.  Stanbery.  Take  him  all  in  all, 
as  advocate  and  statesman,  as  a  chivalric  gentleman  and  as  a  man  of 
surpassing  beauty  of  person  and  emphasis  of  presence,  he  has  had  no  peer 
in  our  American  forum  for  three  decades.  Is  this  too  partial?  Perhaps. 
This  gentleman  was  born  in  New- York  on  the  2Oth  of  February,  1803. 
His  father,  Jonas  Stanbery,  was  a  physician  of  social  and  professional  stand 
ing,  who,  with  his  family,  emigrated  to  Ohio  in  1814,  and  settled  at  Zanes- 
ville,  where  the  author  of  this  book  was  born.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said,  with 
reserve  and  in  extenuation,  that  Mr.  Stanbery  "  stood  up  "  with  the  author's 
parents  at  their  marriage.  Hence  these  partialities.  In  the  year  1815,  at 
the  early  age  of  twelve,  Henry  Stanbery  was  placed  at  Washington  College, 
Pennsylvania.  There  he  passed  through  its  curriculum,  and  graduated  in 
the  fall  of  1819.  Having  determined  on  the  legal  profession,  he  entered 
on  the  study  of  law  in  the  office  of  Ebenezer  Granger,  of  Zanesville. 
The  death  of  his  instructor  occurring  shortly  after,  he  continued  his  studies 
under  the  supervision  of  Charles  B.  Goddard,  of  the  same  place,  a  gentle 
man  no  less  distinguished  for  his  professional  and  social  standing.  The 
exclusion  of  candidates  for  practice  under  the  age  of  twenty-one  rendered 
it  necessary  that  he  should  remain  a  student  for  nearly  five  years.  In  the 
spring  of  1824,  having  attained  the  statutory  period,  he  visited  the  supreme 
court,  then  in  session  in  Gallipolis,  and  by  it  was  admitted  to  practice. 


\ 
\ 


588  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Here  he  attracted  the  attention  of  the  late  Thomas  Ewing,  of  Lancas 
ter.  Then  commenced  that  friendly  association  and  professional  competi 
tion,  which  were  ended  only  by  death.  In  his  person  Mr.  Stanbery  was 
remarkably  handsome  and  attractive.  His  height  was  nearly  or  quite  six 
feet.  His  form  was  symmetrical.  His  carriage  was  erect.  His  head,  cov 
ered  with  dark  silken  hair,  was  stately  poised  upon  slightly  drooping  shoul 
ders.  He  moved  with  an  air  of  dignity  and  grace.  He  commanded  atten 
tion  wherever  he  appeared.  His  voice  was  rich  and  resonant.  His  elocution 
was  rapid.  His  utterance  was  pleasing.  His  emphasis  and  gesture  were 
appropriate.  A  more  magnificent  presence  never  graced  a  court  nor  adorned 
a  public  rostrum.  For  many  years  Mr.  Stanbery  kept  aloof  from  office,  ex 
cept  that  of  attorney-general  of  Ohio.  He  was  called  by  Andrew  Johnson 
to  the  same  position  in  a  Federal  way.  No  mind  was  ever  better  furnished 
for  the  law,  and  no  career  was  ever  more  splendidly  finished.  He  survived 
nearly  all  of  his  contemporaries.  Perhaps  his  noblest  fame  was  won  when 
he  defended  his  chief  in  this  forum  of  the  Senate. 

The  commanding  presence  of  Chief  Justice  Chase  made  the  scene  in  the 
Senate  one  worthy  of  Olympus,  where  Jove  was  known  in  the  councils  of 
the  gods  by  "  his  great  mien  and  power  imperial."  What  an  array  of  great 
talents  is  here  !  In  what  a  great  transaction  !  They  are  engaged  in  the  pros 
ecution  and  the  defense  of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  great  Republic  of  the 
New  World !  The  interest  increases.  The  brilliant  assemblage  of  ladies 
and  gentlemen  in  the  galleries,  including  the  diplomatic  corps  and  their 
families,  presents  an  imposing  spectacle,  such  as  is  rarely  or  never  seen  in 
the  lifetime  of  a  generation. 

The  business  begins !  A  preliminary  question  of  importance  is  to  be 
settled.  It  is  as  to  the  time  which  shall  be  given  the  respondent  to  plead. 
Mr.  Evarts,  on  the  part  of  his  counsel,  moves  an  allowance  of  forty  days. 
In  the  case  of  Judge  Chase,  it  is  shown  that  thirty- two  days  were  allowed, 
although  there  were  but  eight  articles.  In  that  of  Judge  Peck,  although 
there  was  but  one  article,  fifteen  days  were  allowed.  Mr.  Bingham  states,  on 
the  part  of  the  managers,  that  the  eighth  rule  requires  the  respondent  to  plead 
immediately  on  entering  his  appearance,  in  person  or  by  his  attorneys ; 
otherwise,  the  case  to  proceed  as  upon  the  general  issue.  The  managers 
think  that  the  rule  means  precisely  what  it  says,  and  that,  appearance  having 
been  entered  and  no  answer  filed,  the  trial  should  proceed  forthwith.  It  is 
finally  determined  to  give  the  President  ten  days  in  which  to  enter  his 
answers  to  the  articles.  These  proceedings  take  place  on  the  i3th.  On  the 
23d,  the  counsel  for  the  President  enter  answers  to  the  several  charges.  All 
of  these  radiate,  however,  from  the  two  centres  above  named,  —  that  is  to 
say :  the  removal  of  Secretary  Stanton,  and  the  intemperate  speeches  made 
by  the  President  while  on  his  "  stumping'*  tour. 

The  replication  to  the  answers  is  filed  by  the  managers  on  the  follow- 


STANBERY'S  DEFENSE  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.  589 

ing  day.  Then  the  counsel  for  the  respondent  renew  their  application  for 
longer  time  in  which  to  prepare  for  the  trial.  They  ask  for  thirty  days  ;  but, 
after  debate,  only  five  days  additional  are  allowed. 

On  the  3oth  of  March,  Mr.  Butler  opens  the  case  on  behalf  of  the 
managers.  He  sets  forth  the  grounds  on  which  a  conviction  is  urged. 
Witnesses  are  then  examined.  Elaborate  documentary  evidence  is  intro 
duced.  The  trial,  with  varying  prospects,  runs  through  the  month  of  April 
and  into  the  middle  of  May. 

It  is  not  possible  to  portray  the  kaleidoscopic  phases  of  this  trial ;  nor  to 
transcribe  the  speeches  and  their  effect,  which  were  made  for  and  against  the 
impeachment.  The  most  remarkable  speech  was  made  by  Mr.  Groesbeck  ; 
but  altogether  the  appearance  and  phrases  of  Mr.  Stanbery  were  the  most 
impressive  and  emphatic.  He  had  resigned  the  office  of  Attorney-General 
to  take  part  in  the  trial.  It  was  his  last  public  appearance.  The  company 
was  worthy  of  such  an  associate.  No  such  assemblage  of  legal  talent,  no 
such  exalted  official  personage,  no  such  gravity  of  criminal  charge,  had 
ever  before  given  incident  and  interest  to  the  history  of  the  Republic. 

No  one  appreciated  the  gravity  of  the  occasion  more  than  did  this  friend 
of  the  President.  He  was  familiar  with  every  step.  He  was  advised  of  the 
motives  which  prompted  it,  and  had  carefully  investigated  the  legal  proposi 
tions  involved.  He  had  seen  the  conflict  between  the  executive  and  legisla 
tive  departments  of  the  government.  He  was  not  unprepared  for  the  result. 
He  was  feeble  in  health,  but  strong  in  the  consciousness  of  right.  In  that 
august  assemblage  of  peers,  when  he  rose  to  speak  he  was  the  cynosure  of 
all  eyes.  Every  ear  listened  to  catch  the  faintest  murmur  of  his  finely-mod 
ulated  voice. 

After  an  apology  for  his  frail  health,  his  voice  rose  and  lapsed  with  mu 
sical  cadence.  With  a  weird  meaning  and  abstracted  manner  he  tells  the 
Senators  that  unseen  and  friendly  hands  seem  to  support  him  ;  that  voices  in 
audible  to  all  others,  he  hears,  or  seems  to  hear.  They  are  whispering  words 
of  consolation,  of  hope,  of  confidence.  They  say,  or  seem  to  say  :  "  Feeble 
champion  of  the  Right !  Hold  not  back  !  A  single  pebble  from  the  brook 
is  enough  in  the  sling."  Then  he  states  the  facts  and  argues  the  law.  He 
then  rises  to  his  grandest  height  in  his  peroration. 

"Listen  for  a  moment,"  said  he,  "to  one  who,  perhaps,  understands 
Andrew  Johnson  better  than  most  of  you  ;  for  his  opportunities  have  been 
greater.  When,  nearly  two  years  ago,  he  called  me  from  the  pursuits  of  pro 
fessional  life  to  take  a  seat  in  his  Cabinet,  I  answered  the  call  under  a  sense 
of  public  duty.  I  came  here  almost  a  stranger  to  him  and  to  every  member  of 
his  Cabinet,  except  Mr.  Stanton.  We  had  been  friends  for  many  years. 
Senators,  need  I  tell  you  that  all  my  tendencies  are  conservative?  You,  Mr. 
Chief  Justice,  who  have  known  me  for  a  third  of  a  century,  can  bear  me 
witness.  Law,  not  Arms,  is  my  profession.  From  the  moment  that  I  was 


590  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

honored  with  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet  of  Mr.  Johnson,  not  a  step  was  taken  that 
did  not  come  under  my  observation  ;  not  a  word  was  said  that  escaped  my 
attention.  I  regarded  him  closely  in  Cabinet,  and  in  still  more  private  and 
confidential  conversation.  I  saw  him  often  tempted  with  bad  advice.  I 
knew  that  evil  counselors  were  more  than  once  around  him.  I  observed 
him  with  the  most  intense  anxiety.  But  never  in  word  or  deed,  in  thought, 
in  action,  did  I  discover  in  that  man  anything  but  loyalty  to  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws.  He  stood  firm  as  a  rock  against  all  temptations  to  abuse  his 
own  powers,  or  to  exercise  those  which  were  not  conferred  upon  him. 
Steadfast  and  self-reliant  in  the  midst  of  all  difficulty,  when  dangers  threat 
ened,  when  temptations  were  strong,  he  looked  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
his  country  and  to  the  people. 

"Yes,  Senators,  I  have  seen  that  man  tried,  as  few  have  been  tried.  I 
have  seen  his  confidence  abused ;  I  have  seen  him  endure  day  after  day  pro 
vocations  such  as  few  men  have  ever  been  called  upon  to  meet.  No  man 
could  have  met  them  with  more  sublime  patience.  Sooner  or  later,  how 
ever,  I  knew  the  explosion  must  come.  And  when  it  did  come,  my  only 
wonder  was,  that  it  had  been  so  long  delayed.  Yes,  Senators,  with  all 
his  faults  the  President  has  been  more  sinned  against  than  sinning.  Fear 
not  then  to  acquit  him.  The  Constitution  of  the  country  is  as  safe  in  his 
hands  from  violence  as  it  was  in  the  hands  of  Washington.  But  if,  Senators, 
you  condemn  him,  if  you  strip  him  of  the  robes  of  his  office,  if  you  degrade 
him  to  the  utmost  stretch  of  your  power,  mark  the  prophecy!  The  strong 
arms  of  the  people  will  be  about  him.  They  will  find  a  way  to  raise  him 
from  any  depths  to  which  you  may  consign  him,  and  we  shall  live  to  see 
him  redeemed,  and  to  hear  the  majestic  voice  of  the  people,  l  Well  done, 
faithful  servant ;  you  shall  have  your  reward  ! ' 

"  But  if,  Senators,  as  I  cannot  believe,  but  has  been  boldly  said  with 
almost  official  sanction,  your  votes  have  been  canvassed,  and  the  doom  of 
the  President  is  sealed,  then  let  the  judgment  not  be  pronounced  in  this  Sen 
ate  Chamber  ;  not  here,  where  our  Camillus,  in  the  hour  of  our  greatest  peril, 
single-handed  met  and  baffled  the  enemies  of  the  Republic  ;  not  here,  where 
he  stood  faithful  among  the  faithless ;  not  here,  where  he  fought  the  good 
fight  for  the  Union  and  the  Constitution  ;  not  in  this  chamber,  whose  walls 
echo  with  that  clarion  voice  that,  in  the  days  of  our  greatest  danger,  carried 
hope  and  comfort  to  many  a  desponding  heart,  strong  as  an  army  with  ban 
ners  !  No,  not  here  !  Seek  out,  rather,  the  darkest  and  gloomiest  chamber 
in  the  subterranean  recesses  of  this  Capitol,  where  the  cheerful  light  of  day 
never  enters  !  There  erect  the  altar  and  immolate  the  victim  !" 

The  effect  of  this  remarkable  speech  before  a  sedate  tribunal  like  that 
Senatorial  court  was  unique.  The  fortunes  of  the  arraigned  President 
had  been  varying  with  each  figure  of  rhetoric,  and  each  gleam  of  sunshine. 

At  last  the  vote  is  taken.     It  is  taken  on  the  eleventh  article  first  of  all. 


THE  PRESIDENT  "  NOT  GUILTY."  591 

This  is  done  by  way  of  testing  the  strength  of  the  impeachers,  or  possibly 
in  deference  to  the  Scripture  maxim  that  the  last  shall  be  first.  The  article 
is  read,  whereupon  the  Chief  Justice  says:  "Call  the  roll!"  The  chief 
clerk  calls  the  name  of  Mr.  Anthony.  Mr.  Anthony  rises  in  his  place. 
The  Chief  Justice  :  "  Mr.  Senator  Anthony,  how  say  you?  Is  the  respond 
ent,  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the  United  States,  guilty  or  not  guilty  of 
a  high  misdemeanor,  as  charged  in  this  article?" 

Mr.  ANTHONY.     "  Guilty  !  " 

Each  Senator,  as  his  name  is  called,  is  interrogated  in  this  form.  Each 
rises  to  make  answer.  The  Chief  Justice  offers  to  excuse  Messrs.  Howard, 
of  Michigan,  and  Grimes,  of  Iowa,  who  are  in  feeble  health.  They  are 
barely  able  to  be  present.  It  is  an  effort  for  them  to  rise  when  giving  their 
votes.  But  each  in  turn  is  called.  They  prefer  to  rise,  —  Mr.  Grimes  not 
without  the  assistance  of  friends. 

The  Senators  who  voted  "  Guilty"  were:  Messrs.  Anthony,  Cameron, 
Cattell,  Chandler,  Cole,  Conkling,  Conness,  Corbett,  Cragin,  Drake,  Ed 
munds,  Ferry,  Frelinghuysen,  Harlan,  Howard,  Howe,  Morgan,  Morrill  of 
Maine,  Morrill  of  Vermont,  Morton,  Nye,  Patterson  of  New  Hampshire, 
Pomeroy,  Ramsey,  Sherman,  Sprague,  Stewart,  Sumner,  Thayer,  Tipton, 
Wade,  Willey,  Williams,  Wilson,  and  Yates  —  35. 

The  Senators  who  voted  "  Not  guilty  "  were  :  Messrs.  Bayard,  Buckalew, 
Davis,  Dixon,  Doolittle,  Fessenden,  Fowler,  Grimes,  Henderson,  Hendricks, 
Johnson,  McCreery,  Norton,  Patterson  of  Tennessee,  Ross,  Saulsbury, 
Trumbull,  Van  Winkle,  and  Vickers — 19. 

A  vote  of  two-thirds  being  necessary,  under  the  Constitution,  to  convict 
on  impeachment,  the  eleventh  article  fails  to  be  adopted.  The  majority 
thereupon  adjourn  the  court  until  the  26th  of  the  month.  Then  a  vote  is 
taken  on  the  adoption  of  the  second  article.  The  result  is  precisely  the 
same  as  with  the  eleventh.  The  third  article  is  then  voted  on,  with  pre 
cisely  the  same  result ;  when,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Williams,  the  court  adjourns 
sine  die. 

Thus  ended  the  most  momentous  trial  of  our  time.  On  one  vote  depended 
this  stupendous  verdict. 

There  are  some  matters  connected  with  this  remarkable  trial  and  its  re 
sult,  not  known  of  record.  They  are  known  to  those  who  were  intimate 
with  President  Johnson  ;  among  others  to  Reverdy  Johnson,  to  Col.  William 
G.  Moore,  his  private  secretary,  to  William  W.  Warden,  a  trusted  friend, 
and,  we  may  add,  to  the  writer  hereof.  The  confidence  of  the  President 
was  evidenced  by  the  tender  to  the  author  of  an  appointment  as  Minister  to 
Austria.  What  is  said  herein  of  the  minor  history  of  the  impeachment  has, 
therefore,  this  sanction. 

There  were  conferences  between  friends  of  the  President  at  the  "Johnson 


592 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Annex,"  which  should  be  printed.     Some  memory  of  these  conferences,  as 
well  as  of  interviews  with  leading  Republicans,  should  be  preserved. 

From  the  date  of  the  formal  inception  of  the  impeachment  scheme  to  the 
date  of  the  verdict,  one  of  these  gentlemen,  Mr.  Warden,  was  constantly 
interrogated  by  the  Senators  and  Representatives  who  had  ceased  to  visit  the 
Executive  Mansion,  concerning  President  Johnson's  sentiments  and  purposes. 
They  wondered  how  he  looked  at  the  proceedings.  "  Of  these  things  I 
faithfully  and  promptly  informed  him,"  says  Mr.  Warden,  "  in  our  evenings 
together.  When  we  met  at  night — no  matter  how  frequently  we  may  have  met 
during  the  preceding  day  —  Mr.  Johnson  opened  up  with  :  '  Well,  what  are 
the  signs  of  the  zodiac  to-day  ? '  Thereupon  I  would  proceed  to  inform  him 
what  the  main  features  in  the  leading  newspapers  contained  —  always  truth 
fully  relating  what  was  said  of  him  personally  or  relative  to  his  policy, 
sometimes  reading  aloud  portions,  and  never  failing  to  let  him  have  oppor 
tunity  for  forming  his  own  estimate  of  the  prevalent  opinions,  in  favor  of  or 
against  him.  Then  I  proceeded  to  relate  the  occurrences  of  the  day  in 
Congress.  As,  briefly,  for  example  :  '  Mr.  Bingham  and  General  Butler 
had  a  fierce  debate  in  the  House  to-day  ; —  Butler  charged  that  Bingham  had 
been  guilty  of  a  legal  murder  in  the  trial  of  the  assassins  of  President  Lin 
coln.'  Then  I  gave  the  occurrences  in  the  Senate.  In  this  manner  I  im 
parted  my  information  of  all  kinds,  and  as  the  impeachment  trial  progressed, 
and  especially  when  nearing  the  end,  I  informed  him  that,  besides  the  clamor 
of  the  radical  Republican  press  for  a  verdict  of  guilty  and  the  eviction  of 
Mr.  Johnson  from  the  White  House,  the  House  managers  had  been  openly 
predicting  dire  calamity  to  the  country  as  the  result  of  an  acquittal  of  the 
President,  primarily  because  a  verdict  of  '  not  guilty '  would  encourage  Mr. 
Johnson  to  *  do  rash  things  ' ;  i  go  on  in  his  excesses ' ;  *  encourage  the  ex- 
rebels  ' ;  and  further,  that  these  alarmists  in  the  Senate  had  begun  to 
threaten  '  with  infamy '  any  Senator  who  should  vote  '  not  guilty' ;  and  that 
secretly,  in  their  talks  among  themselves,  the  radical  Republican  Senators 
were  endeavoring  to  c  frighten  oft' '  the  so-called  '  doubtful '  Republican 
Senators,  who,  it  was  then  believed,  would  vote  for  acquittal. 

"Senator  Reverdy  Johnson,"  said  Mr.  Warden  to  the  writer,  "had 
made  an  arrangement  with  me  whereby  I  was  to  meet  him  at  his  home  —  the 
Johnson  Annex  to  the  Arlington  Hotel  —  every  evening  at  eight  o'clock,  and 
there  talk  over  the  affairs  of  the  day.  In  those  conversations  he  told  me  of 
the  utterances  of  the  radical  Senators.  As  the  partisan  feeling  in  the  Senate 
became  somewhat  fierce,  Senator  Johnson  became  apprehensive  that  one  or 
other  of  three  of  the  4  doubtful '  Republican  Senators  might  be  driven  to  vote 
1  guilty '  ;  and  the  Senator  informed  me  that  these  '  doubtful '  members  had 
said  to  him  that  it  was  unfortunate  that  there  was  no  means  practicable  by 
wrhich  they  could  have  '  assurances  from  President  Johnson  that  he  did  not 
intend  any  rash  act,'  in  case  of  a  verdict  of  acquittal.  Senator  Johnson 


CONFERENCE  AT  THE  ARLINGTON  HOTEL.  593 

asked  the  Senators  what  they  would  suggest  for  relief  from  their  perturba 
tion.  They  replied  :  '  Let  him  [the  President]  get  himself  heard  publicly 
in  some  form,  denying  such  intention.'  Senator  Johnson  told  these  Senators 
that  President  Johnson,  even  if  inclined  to  such  course,  was  in  no  position 
to  be  heard  publicly  on  this  subject,  except  by  his  counsel  in  course  of  their 
arguments,  and  that  assurances  from  that  source  would  not  be  received  as 
binding. 

' '  Thereupon  Senator  Grimes  —  one  of  the  best  of  the  radical  Republican 
Senators,  and  who  finally  voted  '  not  guilty' — calls  Senator  Johnson  aside 
upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  A  brief,  earnest  interview  is  held.  It  is  con 
fidentially  agreed  that  if  it  could  '  so  happen '  that  President  Johnson  and 
Senator  Grimes  should  meet,  casually,  or  in  a  social  way,  the  subject  would 
be  discussed  informally,  so  that  President  Johnson  might  respond  in  his  own 
way  to  the  assertions  that  he  would  do  rash  acts,  and  encourage  rebels." 

Senator  Johnson  suggested  to  Mr.  Warden  that  at  his  next  meeting  with 
the  President  it  would  be  advisable  to  let  the  latter  know  how  the  matter 
was  affecting  the  doubtful  Senators.  Mr.  Warden  cautiously  approached  the 
President  with  an  invitation  from  Senator  Johnson  to  make  the  latter  a  brief 
visit  at  about  nine  o'clock  on  the  following  night.  Meanwhile,  Senator  John 
son  invited  Senator  Grimes,  who  lived  u  around  the  corner  on  I  Street," 
to  spend  the  evening.  Owing  to  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  President,  it 
proved  to  be  most  difficult  to  bring  about  this  desired  meeting.  However, 
the  visit  was  made.  Senators  Grimes  and  Johnson  are  seated  in  the  drawing- 
room  of  the  latter's  house.  They  pleasantly  chat  about  trifles,  until  Presi 
dent  Johnson  arrives.  He  is  accompanied  by  Col.  Robert  Morrow,  of  the 
President's  executive  household,  and  Mr.  Warden.  The  greeting  is  exceed 
ingly  cordial. 

After  some  rambling  talk,  relating  to  former  days  which  these  Senators 
had  spent  together,  interlarded  with  some  fun  and  humor,  Senator  Johnson, 
at  the  conclusion  of  an  amusing  anecdote  he  had  been  telling,  cleverly 
broaches  the  subject  that  had  brought  the  party  together.  In  a  short  time, 
there  is  a  candid  interchange  of  sentiments  ;  during  which  President  John 
son  becomes  quite  excited  when  expressing  his  indignation  at  the  assertions 
of  the  alarmists  in  the  Senate/1  He  exclaims:  "  They  have  no  warrant 
whatever,  in  anything  I  have  said  or  done  for  believing  that  the  President 
Intends  to  do  any  act  which  is  not  in  strict  conformity  with  the  Constitution 
and  laws."  He  becomes  eloquent  as  he  proceeds.  He  convinces  all  pres 
ent  that  he  heartily  and  honestly  means  what  he  says.  * 

Senator  Grimes  has  frequently  said,  in  defense  of  his  vote  for  acquittal, 
that,  for  himself,  he  never  believed  President  Johnson  intended  to  do  wrong, 
as  alleged  by  the  alarmists  ;  but,  that  even  if  he  had  been  doubtful  before  this 
meeting,  he  would  have  come  away  with  full  confidence  in  the  President's 
patriotism  and  law-abiding  intentions. 


594  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  party  remained  together  an  hour.  They  separated  much  gratified. 
Upon  the  following  day,  Senator  Grimes,  in  a  confidential,  seemingly  casual 
chat  with  the  three  doubtful  Senators,  inspires  confidence.  Without  telling 
them  upon  what  authority  he  acts,  he  says  to  them  solemnly:  "  You  may 
rely  implicitly  upon  this :  I  know  Johnson's  purposes  in  the  event  of  ac 
quittal.  'You  need  not  fear  his  behavior  will  cause  you  to  regret  your  vote, 
whichever  way  you  may  cast  it.  He  does  not  dread,  personally,  a  verdict  of 
guilty.  'He  believes  such  a  verdict  would  be  disastrous  to  the  Republic,  and 
hence  prays  for  acquittal.  But  he  has  no  thought  of  wrong  or  rash  doings." 

The  proceedings  of  the  trial  were  about  closing,  when  the  writer,  then 
out  of  Congress  and  practicing  law  in  New- York  City,  received  a  telegram 
from  Mr.  Charles  W.  Wooley.  It  required  the  author's  presence  at  Wash 
ington.  It  gave  him  some  mysterious  reason.  He  arrived  at  Willard's 
and  was  informed  by  Mr.  Wooley  that  it  was  suggested  that  John  B.  Hen 
derson,  then  a  Republican  Senator  from  Missouri,  was  one  of  the  doubtful 
Senators,  and  as  it  was  understood  that  the  Senator  and  the  author  were  old 
friends,  the  telegram  was  sent.  It  was  true  that  the  friendship  existed.  They 
had  been  Douglas  Democrats  in  stormy  times  together.  The  friendly  rela 
tion  yet  exists.  General  Henderson  is  a  man  of  great  affectionateness  and 
absolute  probity.  But  his  nature  is  mellowed  with  a  geniality  which  is 
a  leading  trait  in  the  nobility  of  the  man.  He  is  not  a  bitter  partisan, 
although  he  presided  over  the  National  Convention  that  nominated  Mr. 
Elaine  in  1884. 

It  was  then  thought  that  the  writer  could  influence  this  Senator.  Whether 
he  could  or  not, — or  did  or  not, —  he  called  on  him  to  make  the  best  impres 
sion  possible  on  behalf  of  "acquittal."  A  public  meeting  had  just  been 
held  at  St.  Louis,  to  instruct  the  Senator  to  vote  "guilty."  His  sense  of  jus 
tice  had  been  affronted  by  this.  In  this  mood  the  writer  found  him.  He 
seemed  to  want  advice  and  counsel.  It  was  not  long  before  the  writer 
was  requested  by  the  Senator  to  pen  and  send  a  telegram  to  the  president 
and  officers  of  that  impudent  St.  Louis  meeting.  It  substantially  read :  "I 
am  a  judge  in  the  impeachment  case.  You  have  no  right  to  instruct  me  in 
such  affairs.  As  I  am  an  honest  man  I  will  obey  my  conscience,  and  not 
your  will.  I  shall  vote  '  not  guilty.'  " 

And  he  did  so  vote.  A  copy  of  that  telegram  the  writer  took  to  the 
White  House  at  midnight.  He  found  the  President  gloomy.  His  fate  de 
pended  on  one  vote  —  nay,  on  this  one  Missouri  vote.  Grimes  and  Ross 
were  sure,  but  Henderson  was  not.  The  telegram  was  read  to  the  Presi 
dent.  A  festivity  was  improvised  on  the  good  news ;  and  the  morning 
dawned  with  roseate  hues  for  all  interested  in  the  righteousness  of  the  Presi 
dent's  acquittal,  and  the  certainty  of  the  vindication  of  a  President,  than 
whom  no  man  was  ever  more  vilipended  without  justifiable  cause. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 


AMNESTY. 

THE  VICISSITUDES  OF  THIS  QUESTION  —  CARRIED  ONCE  IN  THE  HOUSE  — 
COLORED  VOTES  FOR  IT  — GENERAL  BUTLER'S  BILL  OF  GRACE  WITHOUT 
GRACE,  AND  PUNITORY  PARDON  —  MILITARY  REPRESSION  AND  CIVIL  OP 
PRESSION—RANCOR  CHERISHED— HOPES  OF  RECONCILIATION  MOCKED  — 
SPURIOUS  SPIRIT  OF  AMNESTY  — MR.  GREELEY'S  NOMINATION— ITS  CAUSES  — 
MR.  LINCOLN'S  PURPOSE  OF  MERCY  — MR.  ELAINE'S  ACTION  — THE  PAGAN 
POLICIES  OF  REPUBLICANS  — EXECUTIVE  PARDONS  AND  THE  AMNESTY  OF 
THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENT. 

AMONG  the  first  bills  introduced  for  amnesty  was  one  the  author 
offered  in  Congress  as  early  as  1869.  In  fact  he  generally  had 
charge  of  matters  of  a  kindred  nature.  His  object  in  congressional 
service  was,  since  war  could  not  be  alleviated  of  its  cruelties,  to 
mitigate,  in  so  far  as  it  could  be  done,  the  prescriptive  tendency  which  kept 
our  people  separated  by  a  great  chasm.  In  moments  of  unimpassioned 
patriotism  the  House  indicated  its  preferences  in  the  same  direction.  It  may 
be  said  here  that  this  bill  came  within  two  votes  of  passing  the  House  of 
Representatives  when  it  required  a  two-thirds  vote.  That  majority  included 
some  colored  members.  In  1870,  Gen.  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  then  a  member 
from  Massachusetts,  introduced  his  bill  for  a  general  grace,  amnesty,  and 
oblivion.  It  was  copied  from  an  old  English  statute  about  the  Scotch  Re 
bellion.  The  writer  characterized  it  from  his  seat  as  a  bill  for  pains  and 
penalties,  with  a  meagre  element  of  mercy  ;  yet  it  was  a  step  toward  amnesty. 
It  was  grace  which  was  grudged,  amnesty  which  was  exceptive,  and  ob 
livion  brimful  of  memories.  It  was  most  ungracious  grace.  It  was  punitory 
pardon  ;  it  was  a  rushing  and  turbulent  lethe.  The  author  pleaded  for 
mercy  on  the  old  and  fraternal  plan,  and  against  eternizing  proscription. 

Another  bill  appeared  in  Congress  as  late  as  1875,  to  prevent  the  sub 
version  of  state  authority  and  to  maintain  the  security  of  elections.  It  pro 
vided  against  the  invasion  of  states.  There  were  sections  in  it  which  pre 
scribed  penalties  of  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  authorized  suspension  of 


596  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

habeas  corpus.  The  appointment  of  Federal  supervisors,  and  other  measures 
intended  to  inaugurate  force  and  suppress  freedom  a  decade  after  the  war  was 
over,  were  also  provided  for.  General  Butler's  bill  had  in  it  what  the  bill  of 
1875  had  not ;  it  had  some  liberality.  Five  years  had  not  lessened  the  hatred 
of  the  Northern  radical  toward  the  Southern  insurgent.  General  Butler's 
bill  had  a  strange  feature  in  it ;  oblivion  for  the  agents  and  officers  of  the 
United  States  engaged  in  reconstruction  !  Amnesty  for  the  conqueror  ! 

The  history  of  the  United  States,  from  the  close  of  the  war  until  1876,  was 
a  history  of  military  repression  and  civil  oppression,  which  destroyed  the 
old  divisions  of  power.  The  complex  nature  of  our  Federal  and  local  gov 
ernments  was  ignored.  There  was  a  time  in  our  emergencies  when  men  in 
their  extreme  views  cried  out  for  imperial  power.  The  writer  never  sat  at 
the  feet  of  such  tuition.  Sometimes  they  preferred  military  rule,  and  some 
times  revolution.  There  were  civil  convulsions,  as  we  have  shown,  in  Lou 
isiana  and  elsewhere.  They  were  marked  with  blood  and  saturated  with 
fraud.  The  many  South  were  discontented.  They  were  willing  to  be 
pinned  to  the  Union  even  by  an  honest  bayonet,  held  to  it  by  the  mailed 
hand,  or  shackled  to  it  by  an  iron  gyve,  rather  than  to  be  controlled  by  such 
State  governments  as  were  established  for  many  years  after  the  war. 

The  aspiration  for  civil  discipline  and  patriotic  allegiance  was  chilled  in 
the  South.  The  feeling  that  allegiance  led  to  protection,  and  that  these  were 
co-ordinate  in  essence  and  should  be  in  practice,  was  forgotten.  Had  the 
bugles  at  Appomattox  sounded  merely  a  truce  ?  It  was  hoped  that  the  con 
ditions  of  peace  frankly  tendered  by  General  Grant  would  create  a  contented 
people,  and  would  be  observed ;  that  all  future  griefs  would  be  solaced ; 
that  magnanimity  would  conquer  hatred ;  that  scorn  and  revenge  would 
have  their  anodyne,  and  that  for  uncounted  decades  there  would  be  no  inter 
regnum  in  the  serene  dynasty  of  peace  and  love  ;  that  through  the  bleeding 
and  distracted  land,  and  over  the  scenes  and  graves,  and  over  the  sorrows 
of  mourning,  the  lethean  stream  would  gently  flow.  But  what  did  "peace" 
bring  to  the  South  ?  Only  the  respite  of  despair.  It  was  the  sign  and  proof 
of  death.  It  was  lethe,  except  its  sleep.  It  was  all  of  death  with  its  sting 
and  without  its  repose.  Homes  were  wasted  ;  property  was  confiscated  and 
destroyed  ;  enterprises  ruined  ;  cities  burned,  and  the  whole  country  swathed 
in  destruction.  But  after  all,  it  was  expected  that  amid  these  immeasurable 
calamities  hates  and  griefs  would  not  be  perpetuated  ;  that  the  new  generation 
would  not  wear  rancor  in  their  hearts  until  their  hair  whitened  ;  that  they 
would  not  teach  their  children  to  perpetuate  the  hate  of  their  fathers. 

For  ten  years,  the  middle  decade,  the  hopes  of  the  patriotic  were  mocked. 
What  a  mockery  !  God  had  fixed  his  creatures  in  this  fair  land  in  habitations 
bound  together  by  the  same  rivers,  mountains,  lakes,  and  skies.  He  had 
fixed  in  their  hearts  the  ennobling  principles  of  unity  and  peace.  He  had 
sent  to  the  world  the  divine  Prince  of  Peace,  as  an  exemplar  and  Saviour. 


THE  CLEMENCY  OF  GRANT  AND  SHERMAN.         597 

And  yet,  these  benefactions  were  despised,  they  were  turned  by  the  passions 
and  ambitions  of  men  to  shameful  mockery.  The  great  disasters  which  are 
enumerated  in  this  history  of  excesses,  both  in  reference  to  the  war  and  re 
construction,  were  the  result  of  a  diabolical  lack  of  conciliation. 

Even  yet,  as  the  author  pens  these  words,  complete  rehabilitation  has  not 
been  accomplished.  There  are  men  yet  living,  exponents  of  large  constituen 
cies,  who  have  not  been  restored  to  their  citizenship.  They  £  e  living  under 
our  laws  and  Constitution.  \ 

The  amnesty  doled  out  by  Congress  through  many  years\  vas  a  petty, 
personal  amnesty.  It  was  not  based  on  a  general  rule.  It  h\  never  yet 
reached  a  principle.  Such  partial  legislation  was  more  objecti\  ible  than 
would  have  been  a  general  bill  with  bad  features.  It  offered  a  p\  aium  to 
hypocrisy. 

During  and  after  the  election  of  1868,  there  was  an  opportunity  for  im 
provement  and  liberality  in  the  impulses  and  sentiment  which  were  leading 
to  the  nomination  of  Horace  Greeley.  The  writer  has  already  said  that  he 
was  a  successful  candidate  for  Congress  against  Mr.  Greeley  in  New-York 
City,  in  1870.  Two  years  afterwards  his  opponent  was  nominated  for  Chief 
Magistrate  by  the  Democratic  convention.  It  was  Republican  discontent  in 
regard  to  the  condition  of  the  South  that  brought  about  this  remarkable 
result. 

Grant's  agreement  with  Lee,  and  Sherman's  with  Johnston  had  not  been 
fully  observed.  Had  they  been  observed,  the  third  section  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  of  the  Constitution,  which  forbade  the  insurgent  leaders  from 
holding  Federal  and  state  offices,  would  never  have  been  passed.  Had  there 
been  immediate  representation  from  the  South,  according  to  General  Grant's 
recommendation,  the  discontents,  wrongs,  and  troubles  of  the  South  which 
continued  so  long,  would  not  have  existed.  It  is  one  of  the  marvels  of  his 
tory,  that  in  a  country  like  ours,  political  regeneration  should  have  been  so  long 
delayed.  The  French,  the  Turks,  the  Germans,  are  better  in  this  regard. 
With  a  public  opinion,  led  by  a  vigilant  and  generous  press,  leaning  toward 
measures  of  mercy,  our  course  was  more  like  the  continuance  of  proscription 
than  its  discontinuance.  The  great  radical  anti-slavery  party  of  1860  had  not 
the  courage,  wisdom,  or  magnanimity  to  pass  measures  of  amnesty,  and  thus 
secure  the  best  prize  of  war ;  —  the  contentment  of  a  brave  and  conquered 
people.  Even  when  the  war  was  flagrant  there  seemed  to  be  more  generosity 
toward  the  South,  in  some  respects,  than  after  it  was  over. 

When  Mr.  Orth,  of  Indiana,  advocated  his  harsh  measure  of  penalties 
against  the  innocent  children  of  supposed  guilty  parents  in  the  South,  on  the 
ground  that  philology  was  progressive  ;  and  when  he  urged  that  the  Consti 
tution,  though  not  changed  in  terms,  had  been  changed  in  meaning  by  the 
progress  of  our  chaotic  era,  he  found  an  element  of  clemency  in  President 
Lincoln's  heart  which  said  :  "  '  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 


59$  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

forbid  them  not.'  "  That  President  vetoed  the  harsh  bill  of  that  Congress. 
It  was  vetoed  upon  the  speech  of  the  author  opposing  it. 

When  the  amnesty  bill  of  General  Butler  came  up  as  the  best  possible  of 
that  day,  as  it  was  said  in  1870,  the  writer  examined  it  very  critically.  He 
debated  it  fiercely  in  the  House.  Its  title  did  not  properly  express  its  intent. 
The  title  applied  only  to  its  first  section.  The  second  section  was  for  the  relief 
from  litigation  of  those  who  committed  abuses  in  suppressing  the  rebellion, 
as  well  as  of  those  engaged  in  it.  The  third  section  contained  clauses  of  ex 
ception.  The  title  for  the  last  section  should  have  read  :  "A  bill  for  special 
and  general  grace,  amnesty,  and  oblivion  of  the  Republican  party  in  the  de 
struction  of  the  old  and  the  reconstruction  of  the  new  governments,  South." 
The  bill  excepted  what  General  Butler  called  politicians  from  its  favor,  but 
that  made  its  general  title  a  solecism.  It  was  the  play  of  Hamlet,  not  only 
with  Hamlet,  but  Polonius,  king  and  queen,  all  but  the  players,  left  out.  An 
amnesty  bill  with  exceptions  was  no  amnesty.  A  tender  of  redemption  to  a 
fallen  world  including  even  the  chiefest  of  sinners,  the  Sauls  of  the  re 
bellion  of  sin,  was  not  the  model  of  this  kind  of  legislation.  The  offer  of 
grace  should  have  copied  the  eternal  plan.  All  who  believed  and  re 
pented,  and  would  be  saved,  should  have  been  permitted  to  come  and  par 
take  of  the  waters  of  amnesty  freely.  The  tender  would  have  been  just  as 
kind,  if  they  did  not  come.  It  should  have  been  free  grace,  instead  of  an 
act  to  perpetuate  reprisals  after  surrender ;  it  should  have  been  balm  and 
healing;  not  the  opening  of  wounds  afresh,  but  the  pouring  of  oil  on  the 
wounds.  The  disqualifications  by  the  test  act,  and  the  test  oaths  which  it 
took  so  long  to  remedy  and  repeal,  were  not  removed  by  the  letter  of  this 
law  nor  by  the  spirit  which  inspired  it.  If  there  were  any  comprehensive 
effect  to  be  given  to  the  executive  proclamations  of  pardon,  then  that  bill, 
and  others  which  followed  it,  were  surely  unconstitutional ;  for  the  proclam 
ations  of  pardon,  according  to  the  best  authorities,  as  Mr.  Attorney-General 
Garland  has  demonstrated  in  a  recent  Opinion,  covered  with  a  veil  all  cul 
pabilities.  They  placed  those  concerned  in  the  same  position  as  if  their 
offenses  had  never  been  committed.  The  spirit  of  qualified  amnesty  then 
proposed,  is  the  same  spirit  which  is  regnant  to-day  among  many  leading 
Republicans.  But  such  was  not  the  spirit  which  inspired  their  better  ele 
ment  when  Horace  Greeley  was  nominated  in  1868.  The  wisdom  or  the 
unwisdom  of  his  nomination  has  been  discussed.  Although  his  election  did 
not  entirely  bridge  over  the  abyss,  it  tended  to  do  it.  It  built  the  piers. 
His  nomination  was  a  protest  against  military  rule  and  heathen  retaliation. 
The  Democratic  party,  in  standing  by  him,  stood  upon  the  ancient  rock  of 
social  order  by  which  states  are  reconciled  and  people  are  made  harmonious. 

The  world  has  been  cursed  with  military  captains  like  Alva  in  the  Neth 
erlands  and  Turenne  in  the  Palatinate.  These  were  soldiers  who  made 
mercy  the  exception  and  devastation  the  rule.  From  such  exasperating  pol- 


MR.  LINCOLN'S  POLICY  OF  CHARITY.  599 

Icies  we  turn  to  the  policy  of  Hoche  in  La  Vendee,  and  of  the  first  Napo 
leon  after  the  French  Revolution.  All  history  is  full  of  illustrations  of  civil 
conflict  ending  in  a  blessed  opportunity  of  amnesty.  Whether  Christian, 
Hebraic,  or  Pagan,  history  glorifies  them.  They  are  born  of  a  sentiment 
which  has  been  honored  by  the  best  men  of  all  ages.  It  was  sung  by 
Ossian  :  "  Be  thou  a  tide  of  many  streams  against  the  enemies  of  thy  coun 
try,  but  as  the  gale  that  moves  the  grass  to  those  who  ask  thine  aid.  My 
sword  was  never  stained  with  the  blood  of  the  vanquished,  and  never  pierced 
a  fallen  foe."  It  is  a  part  of  the  nobility  of  human  nature, —  in  fact,  it  is  the 
highest  philosophy  of  self-preservation,  to  be  clement.  It  is  not  only  noble, 
but  it  is  the  highest  degree  of  nobility.  In  the  tournament  the  discomfited 
Paladin,  lowering  his  lance  before  his  adversary,  received  a  generous  hand 
to  lift  him  up.  Cicero,  while  Rome  was  racked  with  civil  war,  summed  up 
the  duty  of  a  patriot  in  an  appeal  to  a  new  method  of  conquering.  It  was 
to  fortify  the  Republic  with  kindness.  Even  Charles  II.  was  restored  be 
cause  of  his  liberal  proclamation  at  Breda.  The  best  writers  in  our  English 
tongue,  from  Sir  Thomas  Browne,  the  quaint  Christian,  to  Edmund  Burke, 
in  his  grand  speech  for  conciliation  with  America,  teach  with  more  emphasis 
than  Tennyson's  lyric,  the  nobility  of  kindness  and  the  simplicity  of  faith  in 
human  nature  which  is  better  than  coronets.  Was  it  not  Sir  Thomas 
Browne,  who  said  amid  the  passions  of  civil  war:  "Answer  not  on  the 
spur  of  fury,  and  be  not  prodigal  or  prodigious  in  revenge.  Supererogate 
not  in  the  worst  sense  and  overdo  not  the  necessities  of  evil.  Humor  not 
the  injustice  of  revenge.  Many  there  be,  to  wrhom  a  dead  enemy  smells 
well ;  and  who  find  musk  and  amber  in  revenge.  But  the  ferity  of  such 
minds  holds  no  rule  in  retaliations,  requiring  too  often  a  head  for  a  tooth,  ff 
thou  must  needs  have  revenge  on  thine  enemy,  with  a  soft  tongue  break  his 
bones,  heap  coals  of  fire  on  his  head,  and  enjoy  it.  To  forgive  your  enemies 
is  a  charming  way  of  revenge,  laying  them  at  your  feet  and  unto  sorrow, 
shame  and  repentance,  leaving  them  fast  your  friends  and  solicitously  inclined 
to  grateful  retaliations.  Common  forcible  ways  make  not  an  end  of  evil,  and 
will  have  hatred  and  malice  bind  them.  An  enemy  thus  reconciled  is  little 
to  be  trusted,  as  wanting  the  foundations  of  love  and  charity,  and  but  for  a 
time  restrained  by  disadvantage  or  disability." 

With  this  spirit  enshrined  in  our  policies,  arid  superadded  to  that  ineffa 
ble  grace  from  Galilee,  —  from  the  great  Teacher  and  exemplar,  —  the  very 
root,  bloom,  and  fragrance  of  our  polity  and  civilization  would  have  grown 
immeasurably  beyond  all  the  figures  of  our,senses  or  the  dreams  of  imagina 
tion.  Could  Mr.  Lincoln  have  pursued  his  policy  of  charity, — that  policy 
which  he  defined  when  he  declared,  that  having  conquered  the  enemy  with 
the  army,  we  would  now  conquer  them  with  magnanimity, —  much  of  disad 
vantage  and  more  of  hatred  would  have  been  obviated  in  the  last  two  decades 
of  our  history.  The  conduct  of  such  leading  Republicans  as  Mr.  Blaine,  of 


600  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Maine,  in  the  first  and  best  impulses  which  led  him  to  discountenance  the 
Force  bill  upon  the  South,  and  to  contend  for  a  general  amnesty,  might  have 
given  us  a  wonderful  effulgence  of  national  glory.  Perhaps  the  South  itself 
is  somewhat  to  blame  for  a  change  in  the  policy  of  this  great  Republic,  for  it 
is  well  known,  and  it  was  proved  by  the  writer  in  a  debate  with  Mr.  Blaine, 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the  early  part  of  1876,  that  Mr.  Blaine 
himself  authorized  the  Committee  on  Rules,  of  which  the  author  was  a 
member,  to  report  a  bill  of  general  amnesty  from  that  committee.  He  was, 
as  Speaker  of  the  House,  ex  officio  chairman  of  the  committee.  No  excuse 
can  be  rendered,  or  ever  has  been  rendered,  for  his  precipitate  retreat  from 
the  high  ground  which  he  then  occupied.  In  proof  of  this,  the  record  is 
presented.  Moreover,  had  the  same  distinguished  gentleman  voted  for  the 
resolution  which  the  writer  offered,  or  assisted  to  make  the  vote  unanimous 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  unity  might  have  been  given  to  the  general 
sentiment  of  the  country  as  to  the  purposes,  objects,  and  situation  of  the 
government  as  between  the  sections.  Here  are  the  proposed  resolutions  re 
produced  from  the  Congressional  Record: 

"Resolved,    That  the  people  of  the  United  States  constitute  a  nation  in 
the  sense,  to  the  extent,  and  for  the  purpose  defined  in  the  Federal  Consti 
tution.     That  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  a  Federal  Union,  and 
was  formed  by  the  people  of  the  several  states  in  their  sovereign  capacity ; 
that  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  United  States  Government  are  defined  and 
limited  by  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  these  rights  and  powers  cannot  be 
enlarged  or  diminished  except  by  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution.     That 
the  rights  of  states  have  the  same  sanction  of  security  in  the  Constitution  as 
the  rights  and  powers  of  the  Federal  Government ;  and  that  local  domestic 
government  by  the  several  states,  within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution,  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  liberties  of  the  citizen  and 
the  continuance  of  a  republican  system  of  government.     That  the  doctrine 
that  any  state  has  the  right  to  secede  from  the  Union  is  in  conflict  with  the 
idea  of  a  perpetual  union,  as  contemplated  by  the  Constitution,  and  should 
be  regarded  as  being  forever  extinguished  by  the  result  of  the  recent  conflict.'* 
The  above  resolutions  form  a  compend  of  our  republican  system.     They 
were  intended  to  smother  the  incipient  ambition  of  some  Republican  mem 
bers  who  were  eager  to  start  a  debate  on  "  States  Rights,"  in  order  to  call  oft' 
the  attention  of  the  Democratic  majority  from  certain  personal  derelictions. 
A  Republican  member  from  Indiana  had  introduced  a  resolution  giving  a 
different  interpretation  to  the  Constitution  ;  whereupon  the  writer  obtained 
the  floor  to  propose  the  above.     It  was  carried  by  the  convincing  vote  of 
150  to  40.     Many  Republicans  voted  for  it,  in  spite  of  the  call  of  Mr.  Blaine 
to  vote  them  down.     As  Mr.  Blaine  was  then  a  representative  man,  and 
openly  aspiring  to  the  Presidency,  it  is  singular  that  he  should  have  repu 
diated  the  doctrine  that  local  domestic  government  of  the  states  within  the 


THE  PROSCRIPTIONS  OF  THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.      6oi 

limits  of  the  Constitution  is  absolutely  necessary  to  preserve  individual  free 
dom  and  perpetuate  republican  government. 

As  an  example  of  the  constantly  recurring  issues  growing  out  of  the 
question  of  amnesty,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  pardoning  power  has  fre 
quently  been  before  Congress  and  the  courts  for  consideration.  In  fact, 
almost  while  writing  this  chapter,  an  opinion  of  the  Attorney-General  in 
relation  to  the  appointment  to  a  high  office  abroad  of  one  who  had  been  par 
doned  for  participation  in  secession,  and  who  had  not  received  the  two-thirds 
vote  for  amnesty  provided  by  the  third  section  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment,  is  recorded.  It  was  rendered  on  a  question  of  disability  to  hold  office. 
Had  such  disability  been  removed  by  the  pardon,  or  had  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  which  was  ratified  after  the  pardon  had  been  issued,  revived 
the  disability?  But  the  question  is  still  open,  and  is  undergoing,  and  will 
undergo  discussion,  though  not  as  to  whether  it  would  not  be  wisest  to 
comply  if  possible  with  the  Constitution  as  to  amnesty,  for  to  that  all  pru 
dent  men  will  agree. 

It  is  an  axiom  of  the  courts  that  their  province  is  to  declare  the  lawr,  not 
to  make  it.  But  the  reports  are  full  of  evidence  that  enlightened  judges  sel 
dom  enforce  laws  of  extreme  harshness,  against  the  public  sentiment  of  the 
day,  when  their  rigors  may  be  escaped  by  construction.  Many  harsh  crimi 
nal  laws  are  declared  u  obsolete,"  although  they  were  never  repealed.  Pun 
ishments  that  would  shock  the  civilization  of  this  age  are  prescribed  in  unre- 
pealed  statutes,  but  no  court  will  give  its  sanction  to  them.  They  are 
"obsolete."  Is  it  against  public  sentiment  to-day,  that  an  ex-Confederate 
general  or  senator  takes  a  seat  in  Congress,  or  in  the  Cabinet  or  on  the  Bench 
of  the  United  States  ?  Is  there  any  public  sentiment  that  would  exclude  an 
ex-Confederate  soldier  from  participating  in  this  government  in  any  way? 
Has  not  full  and  complete  amnesty  gone  forth  to  the  South  from  the  people 
of  this  Union  ?  Have  not  the  people  declared  for  the  common  brotherhood 
of  a  re-united  nation,  with  equal  rights  and  privileges  for  all  its  citizens?  If 
by  the  word  "  obsolete"  is  meant  in  law,  a  statute  inappropriate  to  the  age, 
a  penalty  too  harsh  for  enforcement,  then,  surely,  the  proscriptions  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  are  "obsolete."  They  have  no  place  in  the  hearts  of 
the  people  ;  they  may  be  swept  away  as  dead  matter  without  a  murmur  of 
regret.  The  last  sentence  of  the  third  section  of  the  Amendment  might  well 
be  construed  by  a  learned  and  unprejudiced  court,  as  in  no  wray  limiting  the 
well  known  effect  of  an  executive  pardon,  but,  on  the  contrary,  as  vesting 
in  Congress  a  power  of  grace  for  cases  wherein  executive  clemency  might  be 
refused.  If  this  relic  of  our  civil  strife  is  not  obsolete  on  the  statutes,  as  it 
is  in  public  sentiment  let  the  construction  of  the  courts  shroud  its  harsher 
features  with  the  cobwebs  of  their  darkest  alcoves. 

38 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 


TEST  OATHS  AND  PENALTIES. 

THEIR  OPERATION  IN  THE  ONE-TENTH  RECONSTRUCTION  PLAN  OF  HENRY 
WINTER  DAVIS  —  UNFAIRNESS  TO  UNIONISTS  —  TEST  OATHS  DESTRUCTIVE 
OF  TRIAL  BY  JURY  — EFFORTS  AT  TEST  OATH  REPEAL  —  MODIFICATION 
PROPOSED  BY  THE  REPUBLICANS  —  THE  AUTHOR'S  BILLS  —  POLITICAL  OATHS 
IN  FRANCE  AND  ENGLAND -THE  PURITAN  ATTITUDE  -  NOTABLE  CHANGE 
IN  ENGLISH  SENTIMENT  AND  LAW  —  THE  OBLIGATION  OF  AN  OATH  — 
OATH-TAKING  AND  OATH-BREAKING  — THE  MISSOURI  IRON-CLAD  —  MISSOURI 
PERSECUTION  OF  SISTERS  OF  CHARITY  — THE  TEST  OATH  IN  THE  SUPREME 
COURT -THE  GARLAND  CASE  —  SENATOR  GARLAND'S  NOBLE  STAND  FOR 
THE  REPEAL  OF  THE  TEST  OATHS. 

IN  the  discussions  of  the  various  plans  of  reconstruction, —  and  especially 
that  of  Henry  Winter  Davis,  on  the  4th  of  May,  1864, — the  require 
ment  of  a  test  oath  in  respect  to  uninterrupted  loyalty  to  the  general  gov 
ernment,  was  predominant  among  the  measures  for  state  rehabilitation. 
It  was  an  effective  device  for  the  repression  rather  than  for  the  maintenance  of 
governments  in  the  South  of  republican  form.  This  proscription  was  enacted 
on  July  2,  1862.  It  should  have  had  no  force  after  peace  came.  It  is 
known  as  the  "iron-clad  "  oath.  It  reads  as  follows  :  "  I,  A.  B.,  do  solemnly 
swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  have  never  voluntarily  borne  arms  against  the 
United  States  since  I  have  been  a  citizen  thereof;  that  I  have  voluntarily 
given  no  aid,  countenance,  counsel,  or  encouragement  to  persons  engaged 
in  armed  hostility  thereto ;  that  I  have  neither  sought  nor  accepted  nor 
attempted  to  exercise  the  functions  of  any  office  whatever,  under  any  authority 
or  pretended  authority,  in  hostility  to  the  United  States ;  that  I  have  not 
yielded  a  voluntary  support  to  any  pretended  government,  authority,  power 
or  constitution  within  the  United  States,  hostile  or  inimical  thereto.  And 
I  do  further  swear  (or  affirm)  that,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  ability, 
I  will  support  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  against  all 
enemies,  foreign  and  domestic  ;  that  I  will  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the 
same  ;  that  I  take  this  obligation  freely,  without  any  mental  reservation  or 


PROSCRIPTION  OF  JURORS.  603 

purpose  of  evasion,  and  that  I  will  well  and  faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of 
the  office  on  which  I  am  about  to  enter,  so  help  me  God." 

Early  in  the  civil  war  period,  political  test  oaths  became  a  pre-requisite  in 
all  matters  of  public  business  and  engagements.  During  the  reconstruction 
period  these  oaths,  and  especially  the  "iron-clad,"  permeated  like  a  fatal 
leprosy  all  attempts  in  the  South  to  reform  the  codes  of  states  and  the  courts 
of  justice.  Long  years  after  the  war  a  fair  jury  trial  was  well-nigh  im 
possible  in  the  Federal  courts  in  that  section,  because  of  such  oaths  being 
required  of  jurors.  Before  the  enactment  of  the  "  iron-clad"  oath,  namely 
on  June  17,  1862,  an  act  "defining  additional  causes  of  challenge  and  pre 
scribing  an  additional  oath  for  grand  and  petit  jurors  in  the  United  States 
Courts,"  was  passed  by  Congress.  This  act  established  as  causes  of  dis 
qualification  for  such  jurors,  on  which  they  might  be  challenged  :  First, 
"Without  duress  and  coercion  to  have  taken  up  arms,  or  to  have  joined 
any  insurrection  and  rebellion,  against  the  United  States."  Second,  "to 
have  given,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  assistance  in  money,  arms,  horses, 
clothes,  or  anything  whatever,  to  or  for  the  use  or  benefit  of  any  person  or 
persons  whom  the  person  giving  such  assistance  knew  to  have  joined,  or  to 
be  about  to  join,  any  insurrection  or  rebellion,  or  to  have  resisted,  or  to  be 
about  to  resist  with  force  of  arms,  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  or  whom  he  had  good  ground  to  believe  had  joined,  or  was  about 
to  join,  any  insurrection  or  rebellion,  or  had  resisted,  or  was  about  to  resist, 
with  force  of  arms,  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  to 
have  counseled  and  advised  any  person  or  persons  to  join  any  insurrection 
and  rebellion,  or  to  resist  with  force  and  arms  the  laws  of  the  United  States." 
This  act  prescribed  an  oath  or  affirmation  expressly  negativing  these  dis 
qualifications.  It  authorized  the  United  States  District  Attorney,  or  his 
assistant,  to  move,  and  the  court  in  their  discretion  to  require,  the  clerk  to 
tender  that  oath  to  each  and  every  juror  summoned  to  serve  as  such,  and  to 
every  talesman  also.  Any  person  declining  to  take  the  oath  was  to  be  dis 
charged  by  the  court  from  serving  on  the  grand  or  petit  jury,  or  venire,  to 
which  he  was  summoned. 

The  3d  of  June,  1879,  found  the  author  still  appealing  to  Congress  for 
that  relief  from  such  tests  which  did  not  come  until  some  years  after,  when 
Judge  Thurman's  bill  became  crystallized  into  law.  Any  complete  indict 
ment  of  the  party  of  reconstruction  must  contain  this  count,  to-wit :  it  made 
a  just  or  fair  jury  trial  impossible.  It  is  one  of  the  comprehensive  remarks 
of  DeTocqueville  on  our  institutions,  that  "  the  people  gave  legislative  and 
executive  power,  as  well  as  franchises,  to  jurors."  He  associated  public 
freedom  with  the  sacred  right  of  trial  by  jury,  and  in  their  union  he  found 
the  democracy  of  America.  Therein  is  the  directing  power  of  our  govern 
ment,  shining  through  all  its  forms.  In  thus  defining  the  "spirit  of  the 
laws,"  he  followed  the  eulogy  of  Montesquieu  and  the  unstinted  praise  of 


604        THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Coke  and  Blackstone  upon  the  jury  system.  Alas  !  for  the  great  hiatus  in 
our  history,  when  his  unstinted  eulogy  was  bitter  irony.  But  we  had  the 
free  jury  system  when  the  philosophic  Frenchman  wrote  his  volume. 

Wherever  this  system  has  been  transplanted  it  has  grown.  It  has  rarely, 
if  ever,  been  given  up  where  once  planted.  France  got  it  out  of  the  very 
stones  and  bayonets  of  the  barricades  of  1830,  and  still  holds  it.  The  writer 
has  seen  its  utility  exemplified  even  in  Algiers  among  the  indigenes.  Bel 
gium  in  1830  rose  in  insurrection  when  it  was  interfered  with  ;  that  country 
was  severed  in  twain  for  its  vindication.  The  jury  system  is  both  the  cause 
and  proof  of  civilization  and  liberty.  Indispensable  to  the  democracy  of  the 
jury-box  is  the  removal  of  physical  force,  supple  servility,  and  prescriptive 
laws.  Yet,  to  advocate  a  repeal  of  these  political  oaths,  with  a  view  to  the 
restitution  of  fair  jury  trials  and  fair  voting,  was  long  accounted  disloyalty 
by  the  party  that  prescribed  such  impossible  tests.  There  was  no  disqualifi 
cation  so  obnoxious  and  harmful  as  these  oaths.  They  were  the  clumsy  and 
rotten  buttresses  of  arbitrary  power. 

Shortly  after  the  reconstruction  measures  began  their  baleful  operation, 
the  author  introduced  a  bill  to  eradicate  the  whole  test  oath  system,  not 
merely  in  its  application  to  juries,  but  to  all  offices,  including  that  of  con 
gressman.  It  provided — "  That  the  act  of  Congress  entitled  'An  Act  to 
prescribe  an  oath  of  office,  and  for  other  purposes,'  approved  on  July  2,  1862, 
and  so  much  of  the  provisions  of  section  1756  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States,  and  all  other  sections  thereof,  which  provide  for  the  enforce 
ment  of  the  provisions  of  said  act  of  July  2,  1862,  be,  and  the  same  are 
hereby,  repealed  ;  and  that  no  person  shall  hereafter  be  required  to  take  the 
oath  therein  prescribed  as  a  condition  precedent  to  the  holding  of  any  office 
or  to  serving  as  a  juror,  or  to  the  acquirement  of  any  right  under  the  laws 
of  the  United  States." 

In  a  speech  which  the  author  made  on  Feb.  i,  1871,  on  the  subject  of 
u  Familiar  and  Frequent  Oath-Taking,"  he  discussed  the  general  question. 
This  subject  was  suggested  by  Jeremy  Bentham's  queries:  "The  oath 
implies  neither  faith  given  nor  faith  received.  Why,  then,  require  it?  Why 
take  it?  Why  this  farce?  Judges  and  legislators  amuse  themselves  with 
destroying  it."  There  was  then  pending  a  bill  which  prescribed  an  oath  to 
be  taken  by  persons  who  participated  in  the  rebellion  and  were  disqualified 
from  holding  office  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  That  bill  became  a  law 
on  Feb.  15,  1871.  It  was  a  Republican  measure.  It  was  a  partial  measure, 
intended  to  melt  down  somewhat  the  iron-clad  oath.  It  relieved  from  taking 
the  iron-clad  oath  only  those  whose  disabilities  had  been  removed  by  Con 
gress,  while  for  those  who  were  innocent  entirely  of  the  rebellion,  strange  to 
say,  that  iron-clad  oath  remained  long  after  in  force  to  test  their  loyalty  in 
the  past !  The  following  is  the  oath  as  modified  by  that  bill  and  embraced 
in  section  1757  of  the  Revised  Statutes : 


POLITICAL  OATHS  DESTRUCTIVE  OF  FREEDOM.  605 

"I,  A.  B.,  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  support  and  defend 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  against  all  enemies,  foreign  or  domestic  ; 
that  I  will  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  same  ;  that  I  take  this  obliga 
tion  freely,  without  any  mental  reservation  or  purpose  of  evasion ;  and  that 
I  will  well  and  faithfully  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office  on  which  I  am 
about  to  enter.  So  help  me  Crod." 

This  modification  extended  only  to  the  matter  of  qualifying  for  office.  It 
did  not  apply  to  a  jury  test,  nor  in  many  other  matters  under  Federal  juris 
diction.  Yet  it  was  an  advance  toward  that  concession  of  equal  rights 
which  can  alone  maintain  free  republican  government. 

What  a  mockery  were  these  war  oaths  !  The  history  of  political  oaths  is 
a  history  of  oath-breaking.  They  were  as  cheap  as  those  proverbial  of 
the  dicer  or  the  custom-house.  There  is  no  end  to  subterfuges  in  swearing. 
As  the  Spanish  proverb  has  it :  "  He  who  made  the  law  made  also  its  eva 
sion."  Robert,  King  of  France,  saw  men  forsworn  upon  the  relics  of  the 
saints  in  their  wagers  at  law.  Being  of  a  religious  turn,  he  caused  an  empty 
reliquary  of  crystal  to  be  used  to  lessen  the  guilt  of  perjury !  Where  there 
are  changes  of  political  sovereignty,  where  men  have  to  swear  one  day  to 
one  ruler  and  the  next  day  to  another, —  what  sort  of  sanctity  can  belong  to 
such  affirmations  ?  There  ought  to  be  empty  reliquaries  for  such  oaths.  It 
is  a  white  rose  to-day,  and  a  red  to-morrow.  It  is  the  king,  the  assembly, 
the  consulate,  the  monarchy,  the  republic,  the  empire,  and  the  republic  again. 

Talleyrand  swore  thirteen  times  to  his  allegiance,  from  the  pontificate  of 
Clement  XIII.,  on  taking  priest's  orders,  down  through  half  a  century  of 
revolutions,  ending  with  the  accession  of  Louis  Philippe,  who  was  crowned 
in  1830.  The  advancement  of  intellect  and  the  progress  of  opinion  made 
sworn  declarations  of  political  faith  and  loyalty  a  shame  and  scandal,  if  not 
a  jest,  long  before  our  tests.  Bentham  called  those  who  required  them  "  cor- 
rupters  of  their  country."  Did  not  the  Saviour  reprove  the  convenient  con 
sciences  which  are  solaced  by  such  makeshifts?  "Woe  unto  you,  ye  blind 
guides,  who  say,  '  Whosoever  shall  swear  by  the  temple  it  is  nothing ;  but 
whosoever  shall  swear  by  the  gift  of  the  temple,  he  is  a  debtor.'" 

Too  frequent  oath -taking  creates  demoralization ;  it  is  barbarism,  and 
should  be  decreased,  if  not  abolished.  All  political  oaths,  whether  promis 
sory  or  retrospective  are  destructive  of  freedom.  An  oath  which  would  turn 
intelligent,  honest  men  out  of  the  jury-box  strikes  at  the  very  nerve-centre  of 
society.  And  yet  for  years  our  people  were  denied  trial  by  a  fair  jury  of 
honest  men,  selected  without  reference  to  their  political  faith  and  devotion  in 
former  years. 

There  was  a  bitter  contest  in  England  after  the  revolution  of  1640.  It 
turned  upon  an  oath.  It  was  not  merely  prelacy,  or  the  wearing  of  the  sur 
plice,  or  the  use  of  a  liturgy,  or  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  or  the  sign  of 
the  cross,  which  tried  the  soul  of  Richard  Baxter  and  others  like  him,  who 


606  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

would  not  conform  to  the  established  church.  It  was  the  "  et  cetera  "  oath. 
It  had  a  clause  from  whifch  it  was  named  :  "  Nor  will  I  ever  give  my  consent 
to  alter  the  government  of  the  church  by  archbishops,  bishops,  deans,  and 
archdeacons,  etc.,  as  it  stands  now  established  and  ought  to  stand."  This 
was  an  oath  promissory ;  an  oath  binding  fallible  men  never  to  change  opin 
ions.  It  included  in  it  the  et  cetera  —  no  one  knew  what.  An  oath  thus 
indefinite  was  the  essence  of  folly  and  despotism.  Instead  of  helping  the 
prelacy  to  be  unchangeable,  the  et  cetera  oath  roused  up  the  Baxters  of  that 
day  to  resist.  It  became  an  advantage  to  the  cause  of  dissent.  The  Long 
Parliament  seized  upon  it,  along  with  the  ship-money  question,  to  vindicate 
freedom  and  inflame  the  people  against  royalty.  Puritanism  thrived  upon 
that  insane  proscription.  Pym,  Fiennes,  Digby,  and  other  Puritan  heroes 
of  Parliament  thundered  against  it.  After  the  restoration  other  oaths  were 
enacted.  Those  in  the  service  of  the  church  were  required  to  promise  sub 
jection  to  the  canons,  and  to  abjure  the  solemn  league  and  covenant.  They 
were  required  to  renounce  the  right  of  taking  up  arms  against  the  king  and 
his  officers.  By  this  test  the  English  Church  lost  two  thousand  of  its  best 
ministers.  Still  another  law  was  passed,  requiring  of  ministers  an  additional 
oath,  and  providing  that  if  they  refused  to  take  it  they  should  not  come 
within  five  miles  of  any  city  or  corporation,  or  any  place  where  they  had 
lived  or  which  sent  burgesses  to  Parliament.  This  is  one  of  the  oaths : 
u  I,  A.  B.,  do  swear  that  it  is  not  lawful,  upon  any  pretense  whatsoever,  to 
take  arms  against  the  king ;  and  that  I  do  abhor  that  traitorous  position  of 
taking  arms  by  his  authority  against  his  person,  or  against  those  that  are  com 
missioned  by  him,  in  pursuance  of  such  commission  ;  and  that  I  will  not,  at 
any  time,  endeavor  any  alteration  of  the  government,  either  in  church  or 
state."  Some  clergymen  took  this  oath  under  duress.  Those  who  refused 
had  often  no  subsistence  for  their  families  in  the  strange  country  places  to 
which  they  were  expelled.  "  No  severity,"  says  Hallam,  "comparable  to 
this  cold-blooded  persecution  had  been  inflicted  by  the  late  powers  even  in 
the  ferment  and  fury  of  a  civil  war."  All  sorts  of  subterfuges  and  reservations 
were  resorted  to,  to  take  the  oath  and  not  feel  it  binding  in  a  certain  sense. 
It  was  a  fruitful  source  of  prevarication  and  perjury. 

In  the  persecutions  under  this  oath,  and  while  Sidney  and  others  were 
falling  under  the  axe  of  the  despot,  the  leader  of  non-conformity,  Richard 
Baxter,  fell  under  the  tender  mercies  of  Jeffreys  at  Westminster.  That 
judicial  fiend  was  well  selected  to  execute  such  laws.  Never  in  the  career  of 
infamous  judges  has  there  been  anything  to  compare  with  his  brutal  treatment 
of  this  meek  and  just  man.  "  Does  your  lordship  think  any  jury  will  pass  a 
verdict  upon  me  upon  such  a  trial  ?  "  asked  the  author  of  the  Holy  Common- 
wealth.  u  I'll  warrant  you,"  answered  Jeffreys  ;  "  don't  you  trouble  your 
self  about  that."  The  packed  and  corrupt  jury,  summoned  to  do  the  bidding 
of  the  obsequious  tool  of  an  infamous  ruler,  laid  their  heads  together  and 


DECADENCE  OF  THE  OLD  PURITAN  SPIRIT.  607 

found  him  guilty  without  leaving  the  box.  Out  of  the  ordeal  of  such  odious 
oaths  and  mock  trials  sprang  the  noble  army  of  non-conformist  confessors, 
whose  labors  and  sufferings  gave  to  them  an  immortalization  on  earth  by  the 
muse  of  history,  and  to  their  immortality  in  heaven  the  beauty  of  holiness 
which  was  their  "  saints'  rest "  forever.  It  gave  that  grace  and  spirituality  to 
the  better  part  of  the  Puritan  character,  of  which  there  is  so  much  just  boast 
ing  in  our  own  country,  and  that,  too,  on  the  part  of  men  who  have  for 
gotten  the  shining  example  of  their  ancestors. 

Is  it  not  a  sad,  almost  savage  satire  on  these  staunch  men  of  spiritual  faith 
and  austere  manners,  that  their  "stalwart"  descendants  in  the  New  World 
were  the  loudest  leaders  in  perpetuating  the  same  system  of  prescriptive 
oath-taking  and  mock-jury  trial  which  gave  to  England  her  revolution  of 
1688,  and  to  America  her  earliest  and  bravest  lovers  of  liberty?  These  old 
test  oaths  drove  many  a  Puritan,  Quaker,  and  Catholic  to  the  New  World. 
It  was  reserved  for  their  descendants  to  re-enact  them  here  in  the  noon  of 
our  own  century,  not  only  to  affect  religion  and  state,  but  to  inflict  penalties 
and  perpetuate  hatred.  Where  was  that  old  Puritan  spirit  which  led  to  the 
abolition  of  the  Star  Chamber,  the  High  Commission,  and  the  Council  of 
York,  and  which  demanded  the  execution  of  Strafford  and  the  king,  and 
which  always  held  to  the  Petition  of  Right  as  a  palladium  of  English  liberty? 
Where  that  spirit  of  parliamentary  courage  which  arrested  the  attempt  of  the 
king  upon  the  Commons,  when  he  strove  to  suppress  Wentworth  and  to 
arrest  Hampden,  Pym,  Holies,  Haselrig,  and  Strode  for  high  treason,  be 
cause  they  spoke  for  the  Great  Charter  —  the  Petition  of  Right  and  the 
privileges  of  the  Commons?  Where  the  Puritan  nerve  and  spirit  which 
resisted  the  attempt  of  the  king  when  he  came  to  the  Commons  to  demand 
the  five  members,  with  his  guard  of  pensioners  and  tories,  exclaiming  that 
he  would  not  break  their  privileges,  but  that  treason  had  no  privilege  ?  He 
found  that  his  birds  had  flown,  and  retreated  ignominiously  from  the  Com 
mons,  saluted  with  the  cry, — "  Privilege  !  privilege  !  "  This  was  at  a  time, 
too,  when  the  axe  hung  over  the  heads  of  outspoken  Puritans. 

The  writer  would  neither  derogate  from  the  Puritan  character,  nor  unduly 
exalt  it.  Enough  remains  of  the  history  of  the  Puritans  of  New  England 
during  the  many  years  preceding  our  own  Revolution,  to  show  that  the 
spirit  of  Pym,  Hampden,  and  Wentworth  was  instinct  and  alive  in  the  War 
rens,  Adamses,  and  Hancocks  of  our  early  days.  But,  alas,  how  their  de 
scendants  degenerated  in  our  later  troubles !  They  cannot  read  without  a 
blush,  the  history  of  the  test  oaths  which  they  placed  on  our  statute  book, 
even  on  "  revision,"  and  their  laws  for  the  use  of  the  army  to  control  civil 
affairs  and  override  local  rights.  They  were  not  merely  the  passive  instru 
ments  of  their  enactment  and  execution,  but  the  active  advocates  as  well. 

When  Macaulay  described  the  Puritans  of  old  England  as  "looking  down 
upon  the  rich  and  the  eloquent,  upon  nobles  and  upon  priests,  with  contempt, 


608  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

esteeming  themselves  rich  in  a  more  enduring  treasure,  and  eloquent  in  a 
more  sublime  language — nobles  by  the  right  of  an  earlier  creation,  and 
priests  by  the  imposition  of  a  mightier  hand," — could  he  have  dreamed  that 
out  of  a  civil  war  in  this  land,  this  domineering  element,  so  proud  and  great, 
would  fall  so  far  as  to  keep  on  the  statute  book,  tests,  pains,  and  penalties 
which  France,  Turkey,  Russia,  and  even  Asiatic  and  African  barbarians 
would  be  ashamed  to  defend?  What  history  has  not  been  written,  what 
poems  not  sung,  in  praise  of  the  heroic  Puritan  element,  yet  how  ignoble 
their  descendants  seem  when  such  proscription  and  bigotry  are  exposed ! 

In  Great  Britain  there  has  been  much  progress  in  dispensing  with  oaths, 
and  in  their  simplification.  Many  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  oaths  have 
been  abolished.  As  to  the  former,  the  old  oath  still  remains  in  regard  to 
the  doctrines,  prayers,  and  sacraments  of  the  established  church,  and  against 
simony  and  stipends.  The  act  of  31  and  32  Victoria  shows  a  most  enlight 
ened  progress,  from  which  we  might  have  drawn  valuable  lessons.  Com 
pared  with  our  verbose,  vindictive,  and  ridiculous  "  iron-clad"  oath,  the  oath 
it  prescribes  is  a  model  of  brevity  and  sense.  It  reads  :  "  I  do  swear  that  I 
will  be  faithful  and  bear  true  allegiance  to  Her  Majesty  Queen  Victoria,  her 
heirs  and  successors,  according  to  law :  So  help  me  God."  Our  constitu 
tional  oath  is  more  concise  —  "I  swear  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  :  So  help  me  God." 

The  modern  English  official  and  judicial  oaths  are  in  the  same  pithy 
style.  A  schedule  of  the  officers  who  are  to  take  them  is  appended  to  the 
law.  They  are  few  in  number.  The  wisdom  of  Parliament  is  further  shown 
by  the  reduction  of  wholesale  swearing  at  the  custom-houses  and  elsewhere. 
The  oath  for  hosts  of  officers  and  objects  is  repealed  and  a  simple  declaration 
is  substituted.  The  oath  for  members  of  Parliament  is  fixed  by  the  act  of  April 
30,  1866.  It  is  nearly  as  simple  as  the  one  quoted.  For  the  failure  of  a  com 
moner  to  take  it,  there  is  a  fine  of  £500,  and  a  further  penalty  "  that  his  seat 
shall  be  vacated  in  the  same  manner  as  if  he  were  dead."  Even  this  oath  is 
practically  obsolete.  The  expulsion  of  Mr.  Bradlaugh  on  June  23,  1880, 
for  refusing  to  take  it,  will  recur  to  the  reader  ;  and  also  his  re-admission,  five 
days  after,  without  the  oath,  by  a  vote  of  303  to  249.  The  schedule  to  this  act 
contains  a  long  list  of  acts  from  Charles  II.  to  its  date,  which  were  then  modi 
fied  or  repealed.  They  constitute  a  terrible  catalogue  of  bigotry  as  discredit 
able  to  England  as  their  repeal  is  praiseworthy.  Some  of  these  oaths  had 
remained  obligatory  from  the  time  of  Elizabeth.  They  were  prescribed 
against  the  Catholics.  The  act  of  supremacy  was  amended  in  1673.  It  also 
was  framed  to  exclude  the  Catholics  ;  but  it  had  a  similar  bearing  against  all 
dissenters.  It  increased  the  confusion  and  contention  of  the  troublous  era  in 
which  it  was  passed ;  but  it  was  consumed  in  the  keen  blaze  of  our  nine 
teenth  century,  with  the  debris  of  intolerant  ages.  Along  with  it  fell  many 
politico-religious  tests.  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  are  no  longer  to  the  Jew 


THE  GROTESQUE  SIDE  OF  SWEARING.  609 

a  stumbling  block,  nor  to  the  Baptist  foolishness.  A  new  era  of  "reform" 
and  "  emancipation  "  opened  in  the  time  of  George  IV.  Not  only  were  the 
Catholics  relieved  of  their  disabilities,  but  also  "  every  person  of  the  per 
suasion  of  the  people  called  Quakers."  By  three  repeals  the  disabilities  of 
that  chosen  and  eternal  race  of  races,  the  Hebrews,  were  removed,  and 
declarations  were  substituted  in  lieu  of  oaths.  Yet  with  this  light  radiating 
from  the  English  legislature,  we,  who  vaunt  so  much  of  liberal  progress, 
groped  in  the  darkness  of  her  oath-proscriptions  until  the  closing  year  of  our 
last  decade. 

An  English  writer  insists  that  one-half  of  the  oaths  taken  in  the  courts 
should  be  dispensed  with,  including  all  promissory  oaths  as  to  the  perform 
ance  of  duty.  He  would  increase  penalties  for  falsehood,  "while  diminishing 
oaths.  The  manner  of  administering  oaths  has  much  to  do  with  their 
strength  or  feebleness.  How  often  was  the  oath  of  allegiance  made  ridicu 
lous  during  our  war  !  A  cavalry  company  dashes  from  house  to  house,  and 
swears  the  rebels  in.  It  is  followed  soon  after  by  a  company  of  rebels,  who 
swear  them  out.  At  breakfast,  dinner,  and  supper,  over  "hard-tack"  or 
corn  $one,  night  and  day,  when  the  swearer  was  in  the  humor,  off  he  dashed 
after  a  "disloyal "  victim.  One  who  had  that  line  of  patriotic  duty  in  charge 
has  given  the  writer  an  example  of  administering  that  oath  which  illustrates 
this  point :  "You  do  solemnly  swear  (Look  here  !  take  that  cigar  out  of  your 
mouth  !)  that  you'll  bear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  United  States  of 

America  ;  that  you'll  serve  them  honestly  and  faithfully  (Stop  that  d d 

talking  in  the  ranks !)  against  all  enemies  and  opposers  whomsoever ; 
(Johnny,  bring  me  that  demijohn  !)  that  you'll  observe  and  obey  the  orders 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  (Take  off  your  hat,  and  keep  your 
hand  up  !)  and  the  orders  of  the  officers  appointed  over  you :  So  help  you 
God.  Now,— git!" 

This  kind  of  swearing  was  not  peculiar  to  our  war  period.  Dickens 
gives  a  similar  mode  in  the  English  courts.  A  constant  habit  of  admin 
istering  the  same  oath  naturally  begets  this  unpunctuated  and  mingled  mon 
otone  of  indifference  and  frivolity.  It  is  like  Chaucer's  monk,  who  forever 
repeated  the  same  few  terms  —  "  learned  out  of  some  decree." 

One  of  the  peculiar  features  of  the  "  iron-clad"  is  that  it  compels  a  person 
to  swear  that  while  he  is  taking  the  oath  he  is  not  forswearing  himself;  for 
example,  that  he  has  no  mental  reservations,  that  he  is  playing  no  sleight 
with  his  conscience,  no  thimblerig  with  words.  He  is  sworn  that  while  he 
is  swearing  he  is  not  lying !  The  author  has  at  hand  another  illustration 
of  a  peculiar  mode  of  swearing.  It  is  an  oath  which  reserves  so  many 
conditions  and  qualifications  that  it  nullifies  itself.  Carleton  publishes  it  of 
one  of  his  Celtic  characters,  who  is  urged  by  his  good  priest  to  take  a  pledge 
against  intemperance.  The  affiant  went  to  the  schoolmaster  of  his  village 
and  had  the  following  drawn  : 


6lO  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

44  Oath  against  liquor  made  by  me,  Cornelius  O'Flaherty,  philomath,  on 
behalf  of  Misther  Peter  Connell,  of  the  Cross  Roads,  merchant,  on  one  part, 
and  of  the  soul  of  Mrs.  Ellish  Connell,  now  in  purgatory,  merchantess,  on 
the  other. 

44 1  solemnly,  and  meritoriously,  and  soberly  swear  that  a  single  tumbler 
of  whisky  punch  shall  not  cross  my  lips  during  the  twenty-four  hours  of  the 
day,  barring  twelve,  the  locality  of  which  is  as  followeth  : 

Imprimis  —  Two  tumblers  at  home,       .......     2 

Secundo  —  Two  more  ditto  at  my  son  Dan's,       .....  2 

Tertio  —  Two  more  ditto  behind  my  own  garden,             .          .          .  .2 

Quarto  —  One  ditto  at  the  Rev.  Father  Mulcahy's,  i 

Quinto  —  Two  more  ditto  at  Frank  McCarrolPs,  of  Kilclay,  .         .  .2 

Sexto  —  One  ditto  wid  ould  Bartle  Gorman,  of  Cargah,  i 

Septimo  —  Two  more  ditto  wid  honest  Roger  McGaugy,  of  Nurchasey,  .     2 

12 

44  N.  B. —  I  except  in  case  any  docthor  of  physic  might  think  it  right  and 
medical  to  ordher  me  more  for  my  health ;  or,  in  case  I  could  get  Father 
Mulcahy  to  take  the  oath  off  of  me  for  a  start,  at  a  wedding,  or  a  christening, 
or  at  any  other  meeting  of  friends  where  there's  drink." 

The  author  does  not  know  whether  congressmen  would  make  these  ex 
tensive  reservations.  The  reader  probably  knows  how  recruits  were  sworn, 
and  how  they  were  prepared  for  the  battles  of  the  Republic.  No  custom 
house  officer  ever  administered  a  stressless  oath  with  more  haste  and  noncha 
lance  than  do  some  of  our  courts.  Who  feels  the  binding  force  of  such  an 
oath?  Who  is  not  shocked  by  the  irreverence  and  frivolity?  Such  trivial 
and  frequent  swearing  is  no  swearing  at  all ;  and,  by  extremes,  it  violates  the 
Bible  command,  "  Swear  not  at  all ! "  It  reminds  one  of  the  man  who  was 
swearing  loudly  to  Hercules.  His  companion  said:  "Do  not  call  so  loud, 
or  the  god  may  hear  you  !  "  Our  statutes  groan  with  oaths  at  every  page. 
Like  the  ghost  in  Hamlet,  they  say  :  44  Swear  !  "  "  Swear  !  "  They  should 
evanish  with  the  dawn.  Governments  condemn  Thugs,  Carbonari,  Ku-Klux, 
Nihilists,  and  secret  societies  generally,  for  their  mystic  oaths.  Let  govern 
ments  set  a  good  example  and  abolish  the  custom.  The  wisest  writers  hold 
oaths  to  be  repugnant  to  the  Christian  religion.  Bentham  wonders  why, 
under  such  a  religion,  oaths  should  be  so  common.  The  answer  is  not 
complimentary  to  our  civilization.  In  earlier  days,  society  was  cemented 
by  solemn  oaths.  Liberty  was  assured,  as  in  Switzerland,  by  an  oath. 
Patriotism,  is  sometimes  nerved  and  obligations  sanctified  by  a  solemn  oath, 
when  the  bonds  of  society  become  loose  and  require  tightening.  But  what 
a  farce  is  constant  swearing!  When  it  was  so  general  in  England,  the 


WHAT  IS  AN  OATH?  6ll 

traveling  Briton  was  everywhere  on  the  continent   designated  by  his  own 
shortest  and  commonest  expletive. 

There  has  been  much  metaphysical  discussion  as  to  the  definition  of  an 
oath.  Is  it  a  religious  affirmation  or  an  invocation  to  God  as  a  witness?  Is 
it  an  imprecation  of  the  vengeance  of  God  upon  him  who  swears  falsely,  or 
a  mere  promise  ?  What  was  the  custom  and  law  of  the  Jews  ?  The  word 
often  used  in  the  Greek  version  of  the  Testament  interprets  one  meaning  of 
an  oath,  i£opx{Za> — UI  adjure  thee"  ;  UI  call  on  thee  to  declare  the  truth." 
The  corresponding  Hebrew  word  is  JDk?'  It  signifies  at  all  times  and 
places  in  the  Jewish  history  an  adjuration.  From  Genesis  to  Revelations  it 
is  the  same.  The  majesty  of  the  adjuration,  used  by  the  high  priest  to  evoke 
the  truth,  is  not  lessened  by  too  much  frequency.  There  was  no  frivolity  in 
its  administration.  The  New  Dispensation  discloses  another  custom  :  "Let 
your  communication  be  yea,  yea,  and  nay,  nay ;  for  whatsoever  is  more  than 
these  cometh  of  evil ! "  Many  sects  besides  the  Anabaptists,  Moravians,  and 
Quakers  hold  that  to  take  an  oath  is  an  abuse  of  the  name  of  God.  Calvin 
said  that  there  was  no  need  of  such  a  superfluity  of  oaths.  Therein  he  fol 
lowed  the  Christian  fathers.  Augustine  sums  up  his  creed  in  these  words  : 
"False  swearing  is  fatal,  true  swearing  is  dangerous,  swearing  not  at  all  is 
safe."  Chrysostom,  of  the  golden  mouth,  said  that  "swearing  took  its  be 
ginning  from  want  of  truth  and  punctuality. " 

Classic  literature,  like  our  Reconstruction  acts,  is  full  of  oath-taking. 
Homer's  heroes,  like  the  army  in  Flanders,  swore  terribly.  Even  Helen 
swore.  She  swore  fidelity  to  Menelaus.  We  know  how  she  kept  her  oath. 
The  immortal  gods  swore  by  the  waters  of  the  Styx.  The  classic  swearing 
was  done  by  attesting  and  imprecating  in  the  name  of  the  gods.  During 
the  Commonwealth  the  Romans  swore  by  their  swords.  Under  the  Empire 
they  made  their  sacraments  in  the  name  of  their  Caesars.  Numa  swore  by 
the  goddess  Fides,  while  now  and  then  a  warrior  swore  by  the  quiver  of 
Diana.  The  Egyptians  swore  by  cats,  dogs,  snakes,  crocodiles,  baboons, 
and  onions !  Sometimes  the  ancient  soldiers  killed  a  bull,  dipped  their 
hands  in  his  gore,  and,  like  other  valiant  men,  swore  to  Bellona  to  do  brave 
deeds.  In  China  a  saucer  is  broken,  and  they  swear  to  be  broken  like  it  if 
they  lie.  In  India  they  cut  off  the  head  of  a  cock,  with  the  same  sort  of 
imprecation.  Some  Hindus  swear  by  holding  a  cow  by  the  tail  —  that  use 
ful  beast  being  sacred  with  the  Brahmins. 

All  through  history,  from  Justin  Martyr  down  to  George  Fox,  Christian 
men  have  suffered  death  at  the  stake,  and  imprisonment  often,  because  they 
would  not  swear.  After  the  Restoration  in  England,  three  thousand  and 
sixty-eight  Quakers  went  to  jail  rather  than  give  up  their  non-oath-taking 
tenets.  But  of  all  the  oaths,  the  one  most  repugnant  to  good  sense  and  con 
science  is  that  as  to  civic  conduct.  When  we  recall  to  mind  how  Harold 
swore  to  William  of  Normandy  that  he  would  renounce  the  crown,  and  then 


6l2  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

began  to  rebel ;  how  King  John  and  his  son  Henry  swore  an  oath  to  uphold 
Magna  Charta,  only  to  break  it ;  and  Cromwell,  to  keep  Parliament  in  session 
five  months,  only  to  break  it,  then  we  perceive  how  cheap  oath-taking  of 
this  kind  is.  But  what  shall  be  said  of  tests  in  the  form  of  oaths  as  to  past 
opinions  and  conduct,  and  as  to  countenancing  and  comforting  a  lost  cause  ! 
By  them  a  man  was  required  to  perjure  himself,  or  be  shut  out  from  jury 
service  and  official  duty.  The  tests  made  him  the  pariah  of  society. 

When  we  consider  how  many  cunning  devices  are  resorted  to  for  evasion, 
as  by  kissing  the  thumb  instead  of  the  Book,  and  how  many  lies  are  told 
which,  as  Coke  says,  "  concern  not  the  suit,  and  therefore  are  extrajudicial," 
and  upon  which  no  perjury  can  be  assigned,  may  we  not  conclude  that  these 
makeshifts  contribute  to  lying  ?  Do  they  not  belittle  an  oath  that  should  be 
solemn  ?  Is  not  this  the  effect  of  frequent  and  familiar  swearing  ?  Do  not  fre 
quent  oath-takings  dishonor  society,  and  government  —  its  agent  ?  Do  they 
not  call  down  religion  from  its  heavenly  home  and  drag  it  into  the  mire  of 
human  depravity?  Do  they  not,  therefore,  corrupt  the  very  well-springs  of 
truth  and  justice  ? 

It  was  because  these  prescriptive  oaths  were  the  Federal  test  for  jurors  and 
office-holders,  and  because  they  were  a  portion  of  a  system  of  demoralization 
and  barbarism,  that  the  writer  introduced  the  bill  for  their  abolition.  He 
would  go  further  and  abolish  all  political  retrospective  and  promissory  oaths. 
No  fear  of  revolution,  no  timidity  about  coercion,  would  for  a  moment  deter 
him  from  following  a  policy  which  would  save  society  from  that  reckless 
invocation  of  the  Divine  Majesty  which  is  so  often  used  on  the  occasion  of 
oath-taking.  Is  it  not  appalling,  that  upon  so  many  trifling  occasions  we 
call  upon  the  sacred  name  of  God,  and  dim  that  effulgence  which  emanates 
from  the  promise  of  His  word  by  contamination  with  the  imperfections  and 
vices  of  men? 

Since  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  the  writer  recalls  but  one  statutory  oath 
that  may  be  regarded  as  having  been  framed  in  charity  toward  an  erring 
brother.  That  oath  was  prescribed  by  the  act  of  Congress  of  June  i,  1872, 
and  is  contained  in  sections  1042  and  5296  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States.  These  sections  provide  that  a  poor  convict  who  has  been 
sentenced  by  any  court  of  the  United  States  to  pay  a  fine,  or  fine  and  costs, 
with  or  without  imprisonment,  and  has  been  confined  in  prison  thirty  days 
solely  for  non-payment  of  the  fine  or  costs,  may,  upon  application  in  writing 
to  any  circuit  court  commissioner  in  his  district,  setting  forth  his  inability  to 
pay  the  fine  or  costs,  be  admitted  to  a  hearing  before  the  commissioner  for 
the  purpose  of  showing  his  inability  to  pay,  and  that  he  is  without  property 
exceeding  twenty  dollars  in  value,  except  such  as  is,  by  the  laws  of  his  state 
exempt  from  being  taken  in  execution  for  debt ;  and  that  upon  satisfactory 
proof  to  the  commissioner  he  shall  be  discharged  on  taking  the  oath  men 
tioned,  which  reads  as  follows  :  "I  do  solemnly  swear  that  I  have  not  any 


THE  MISSOURI  IRON-CLAD  OATH.  613 

property,  real  or  personal,  to  the  amount  of  twenty  dollars,  except  such  as 
is  by  law  exempt  from  being  taken  on  civil  precept  for  debt  by  the  laws  of 

the  State  of ;  and  that  I  have  no  property  in  any  way  conveyed  or 

concealed,  or  in  any  way  disposed  of,  for  my  future  use  or  benefit.  So  help 
me  God." 

Not  one  of  all  the  oaths  ever  recorded  in  sacred  or  classic  lore,  or  pro 
pounded  in  any  land,  for  political,  religious,  judicial,  martial,  or  festive  pur 
poses  ;  whether  for  jurors,  witnesses,  or  officials  ;  whether  at  custom-houses 
or  at  marriage  rites  ;  whether  to  suspected  patriots  or  supposed  traitors,  from 
Noah,  who  took  the  first  oath,  down  to  the  cloud  of  investigation-committee 
witnesses,  surpassed  our  "iron-clad"  oath  for  the  ridiculousness  and  variety 
of  its  application,  save  one  only.  There  was  one  exception  perhaps  ;  and 
that,  too,  in  our  own  country.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  Missouri  constitution 
made  by  Republicans  just  before  the  end  of  the  war.  That  oath  illustrates 
the  fact  that  there  are  some  laws  and  some  men  who,  to  carry  out  their 
grudges,  defy  the  everlasting  order  and  congruity  of  things.  It  is  enough  to 
condemn  the  party  which  made  it  to  an  eternity  of  infamy.  Luckily,  as 
shown  in  a  former  chapter,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  pulled  it 
up  by  the  roots.  Although  it  remained  in  force  for  five  years  to  blot  the 
organic  law  of  a  great  and  growing  state,  and  although  its  provisions  again 
and  again  were  used  to  give  to  a  small  minority  of  the  people  of  Missouri 
the  ruling  power,  yet  at  last  its  authors  hid  from  public  execration,  and  the 
oath  was  stamped  out  by  the  decision  of  Mr.  Justice  Stephen  J.  Field,  in  an 
opinion  which  adds  to  his  fame  as  an  enlightened  and  liberal-minded  jurist. 

Well  did  these  vile  bigots  of  Missouri  understand  that  whole  classes  of 
good  citizens  wrould  be  unable  to  take  the  oath  they  prescribed,  and  be  incap 
able  of  jury  or  any  other  duty  to  society  or  to  the  state.  But,  comforted  and 
protected  by  the  prescriptive  bigotry  and  hate  of  Congress,  with  its  "  iron 
clad,"  they  disfranchised  the  majority  of  the  state.  How  was  the  Missouri  law 
executed?  It  was  not  in  the  ordinary  sense  a  law.  It  had  not  the  excuse  of 
legislative  inconsiderate  haste.  It  was  made  a  part  of  the  fundamental  con 
stitution  of  a  great  state.  It  had  not  even  the  flimsy  excuse  of  Protestant 
bigotry  against  the  Catholic  faith.  In  some  counties  Methodists  as  well  as 
Catholics  were  indicted,  tried,  and  convicted  for  preaching  Christ's  gospel  of 
love  ;  because,  like  Richard  Baxter,  they  would  not  commit  perjury  or  con 
form  to  the  oath.  These  men  had  been  preaching  that  gospel  for  years  ;  but 
no  amount  of  work  in  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord  saved  them  from  the  remorse 
less  clutch  of  these  self-righteous  "  loyal  "  Pharisees.  True,  this  constitu 
tional  clause  was  not  directed  against  the  body.  It  did  not  use  torture,  rack, 
and  thumb-screw.  But  it  was  a  radical  ukase  against  the  sacred  conscience 
of  man  —  a  torture  of  the  soul — a  devilish  plot  against  the  ministrations  of 
religion  and  the  teaching  of  all  classes  of  mind.  It  was  worse  than  barbaric. 
It  was  worse  than  the  worst  of  the  Federal  proscriptions. 


614  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

In  the  recent  wars  of  Europe  the  red-cross  flag  of  Geneva,  with  its  white 
ground  of  charity,  gave  immunity  to  those  who  cared  for  the  sick.  It  alle 
viated  suffering  and  saved  life.  It  earned  the  blessings  and  gratitude  of 
all.  It  gave  laws  of  kindness  to  war.  But  this  infamous  Missouri  oath, 
which  stopped  the  physician  in  his  round  of  duty  to  the  sick  and  dying, 
and  the  priest  in  his  consolations,  would  have  hauled  down  the  red  cross  of 
Geneva.  When  it  did  not  imprison  the  clergyman  in  his  home,  it  did 
worse  ;  it  consigned  him  to  the  common  jail.  It  was  worse  than  the  "  five- 
mile  act "  of  Episcopal  bigotry  against  the  Dissenters.  How  was  it  exe 
cuted  ?  Let  one  instance  illustrate.  The  radical  ghouls  of  Cape  Girardeau 
County,  Missouri,  indicted  under  this  law  the  Sisters  of  Charity  who  taught 
in  a  convent.  Three  of  these  angels  of  mercy  were  dragged  into  court,  and 
tried  for  not  having  taken  the  oath  it  prescribed.  And  —  will  it  be  believed 
now  ?  —  the  foreman  of  the  grand  jury  sent  his  own  child  to  the  convent  to 
be  taught,  so  as  to  get  proof  of  the  teaching,  and  thus  to  convict !  In  that 
case,  however,  public  opinion  revolted,  and  the  Titus  Oateses  of  Missouri 
hid  their  heads  for  a  time  from  public  opinion  ;  but  not  without  leaving  their 
proscriptive  meanness  as  an  evidence  of  how  far  degeneracy  could  go  from 
the  days  of  Pym  and  Hampden,  Baxter  and  De  Foe.  They  left  imperishable 
evidence  of  their  unfitness  to  live  as  co-workers  for  good  in  human  society. 
If  these  Sisters  of  Charity  and  Mercy,  the  Florence  Nightingales  of  our 
conflict,  have  passed  from  earth  and  found  their  beatitudes  in  that  azure 
sheen  where  walk  the  pure,  white-handed  in  celestial  light,  singing  the 
praises  of  the  Saviour  they  served  here  among  men,  with  what  pitying  eyes 
do  they  look  down  upon  the  foolish  and  spiteful  human  craftiness  which 
sought  to  break  the  blessed  utility  and  unity  of  their  lives  by  such  a  relentless 
persecution  !  Language  has  no  vehicle  of  expression,  the  mind  no  idea,  fit 
to  tell  the  burning  shame  which  should  blister  forever  the  cowardice  and 
cruelty  of  a  test  so  odious  and  hateful  as  that  of  the  Missouri  oath. 

Sergeant  Talfourd,  in  his  Ion,  describes  the  solace  and  comfort  of  those 
who  by  humane  endeavor  mold  their  lives  into  benevolence.  But  these 
radical  constitution-makers  and  executors  of  infamous  statutes  arrested  and 
imprisoned  even  sisters  of  that  order  of  charity  which  has  gladdened  our  sad 
world  by  its  merciful  ministrations.  Names  of  this  sisterhood  are  not 
sounded  by  the  brazen  trumpets  of  publicity,  nor  mingled  with  the  notes  of 
sectarian  discord ;  yet  they  are  found  on  the  criminal  records  of  radical 
Missouri  —  the  disgrace  of  our  generation. 

What  execrations  are  not  due  to  those  who  persecuted  these  loving  la 
borers?  From  the  earliest  centuries  after  Christ,  when  the  noble  Roman  lady, 
Paula,  took  up  her  residence  in  Bethlehem,  to  care  for  and  comfort  the  sick ; 
from  the  time  she  "  laid  their  pillows  aright,"  as  the  old  chronicle  tells  us, 
and  felt  that  the  less  service  she  did  to  the  sick  the  less  she  did  to  God  ;  from 
the  time  of  this  first  Sister  of  Mercy  down  to  our  day,  when  the  kind  Sceurs 


PERSECUTION  OF  RELIGIOUS  TEACHERS.  615 

Hospital&res  of  France,  Beguines  of  Flanders,  and  the  Sisters  of  Elizabeth 
in  Germany,  in  their  black  gowns  and  white  hoods,  their  complacent  sweet 
ness  and  holy  living,  gave  to  the  stricken  their  self-devotion,  so  nobly  illus 
trated  by  Florence  Nightingale  and  her  company  of  noble  women,  whose 
only  desire  was  to  go  where  suffering  and  perils  were  greater,  —  no  one  had 
ever  dared  to  lay  secular  or  rude  hands  upon  one  of  this  Sisterhood. 

Who  would  have  thought,  at  the  close  of  our  Civil  War,  when  the  bugles 
had  sounded  the  long  truce  and  war-broken  soldiers  were  left  stranded  in  the 
hospitals,  that  there  was  one  being  in  human  shape  who  could  be  so  regard 
less  of  those  gentle  sisters  who  had  shown  such  self-abnegation,  as  to  perse 
cute  them  as  outlaws  of  society  ?  Had  they  not  bent  over  the  wounded  and 
the  sick  "  when  pain  and  anguish  wrung  the  brow,"  and  whispered  low  the 
words  of  peace,  patience,  and  divine  hope,  while  smoothing  the  pillow  and 
holding  the  cup  to  the  parched  lip  ?  Had  they  not  aided  the  healing  power 
with  angelic  cheerfulness,  and  by  their  softening  and  purifying  presence 
given  good  impulses  and  holy  thoughts  to  the  sick  and  dying  ?  Why,  even 
the  Robespierres  and  Dantons,  and  the  very  devils  of  the  French  Reign  of 
Terror  respected  this  Sisterhood.  They  were  recalled  by  a  special  decree  of 
the  republic,  which  recited  their  boundless  love  and  charity ;  and  their  faith 
ful  head,  "  Citoyenne"  Duleau,  was  given  new  authority  to  practice  their 
beautiful  vocation.  But  had  this  French  sisterhood  lived  in  Missouri  and 
given  their  angelic  sympathy  and  good  offices  to  the  wounded  rebels,  fine 
and  imprisonment  would  have  been  their  punishment.  The  very  fiends  of 
the  Reign  of  Terror  put  to  shame  these  bigots  of  our  day  and  generation ! 
In  only  one  other  state  did  radical  proscription  go  thus  far.  In  West  Vir 
ginia  the  constitution  forbade  any  one  to  teach  school  who  had  not  taken  an 
oath  of  loyalty.  Girls  of  fourteen  were  suppressed  as  teachers  under  this 
policy  of  spite. 

The  Supreme  Court  has  more  than  once  passed  on  the  iron-clad  oath.  In 
the  case  of  Mr.  Attorney-General  Garland,  already  referred  to  in  another 
chapter,  who  desired  to  resume  his  practice  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  the  same  principles  as  those  asserted  in  the  Cummings  case 
were  vindicated.  The  Court  allowed  him  to  resume  his  practice  in  the 
United  States  Courts.  By  a  law  passed  on  the  24th  of  January,  1865,  the 
iron-clad  oath  had  been  extended  to  the  attorneys  of  the  courts  of  the  United 
States.  But  the  Court  held  that  the  oath  prescribed  operated  as  a  legislative 
decree  of  perpetual  execution,  and  was  ex  post  facto. 

The  repeal  of  the  prescriptive  statutes,  which  clouded  our  Federal  sys 
tem,  was  a  paramount  duty.  The  Democrats  sought  to  recrown  the  dis 
crowned  majesty  of  the  people,  and  to  enthrone  the  states  in  their  proper 
relation  to  the  government,  and  thus  reset  and  repolish  the  jewels  of  popular 
sovereignty.  With  what  success  ? 

The  reader  may  well  ask,  was  this  discrowned  sovereignty  rehabilitated  ? 


6l6  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Only  after  many  efforts  was  this  done.  The  lower  House  of  the  Forty-eighth 
Congress,  at  its  first  session,  passed  the  bill  of  the  writer  —  by  a  two-thirds 
vote.  It  was  a  general  bill.  It  had  the  sanction  of  the  best  lawyers,  such 
as  Judge  Poland.  But  the  Senate  was  reluctant.  At  last,  however,  the 
matter  was  compromised.  Something  was  gained,  but  not  all.  Senator 
Garland  —  whose  magnificent  efforts  in  behalf  of  this  amnesty  were  his 
crowning  glory  in  Congress  —  advised  the  author  to  take  what  the  Senate 
sent  as  the  best  possible  to  be  then  and  there  had.  The  bill  repealed  the 
iron-clad  oath  and  the  jury  test  oath.  It  was  approved  by  the  President, 
May  13,  1884 — almost  two  decades  after  the  war  was  over.  It  took  away 
many  of  the  gross  absurdities  of  the  law.  It  retained  one,  however.  It 
amended  section  1218  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  so  as  to  read —  u  No  person 
who  held  a  commission  in  the  army  or  navy  of  the  United  States  at  the 
beginning  of  the  late  rebellion,  and  afterward  served  in  any  capacity  in  the 
military,  naval,  or  civil  service  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  or  of 
either  of  the  states  in  insurrection  during  the  late  rebellion,  shall  be  appointed 
to  any  position  in  the  army  or  navy  of  the  United  States."  Still  prescriptive  ! 
The  commissioned  officers  are  still  under  the  ban. 

The  great  trouble  with  the  policies  of  the  Radicals  was  that  they  were 
framed  in  suspicion  of  all  the  people  South  and  of  all  party  opponents  North. 
The  Radicals  forgot  the  motto  of  the  Italians:  "  Sospetto  licenzia  fede" 
If  they  had  not  the  spirit  of  kindness  toward  others,  they  should  not  have 
been  cruel  to  themselves.  As  Sir  Thomas  Browne  said  of  revenge,  "It 
only  feathers  the  arrow  of  the  enemy"  ;  so  the  same  may  be  said  of  ignoble 
suspicion.  It  destroys  all  that  is  knightly  and  magnanimous.  There  is  no 
lack  of  wisdom  or  patriotism  in  following  the  precepts  of  history  as  to  clem 
ency.  They  teach  that  revenge  is  injustice,  and  that  it  hurts  most  those  who 
indulge  in  it. 

Twenty  years  have  passed  since  the  war  was  closed.  It  is  high  time  that 
all  sectional  proscriptions,  prejudices,  and  animosities  should  cease.  We  have 
felt  —  those  of  us  who  are  Northern  Democrats — that  a  great  wrong  was 
done  by  this  long  delay  in  healing  the  wounds  of  the  war.  Let  us  now  draw 
the  curtain  upon  sectional  wrongs.  It  is  for  us  to  have  our  brothers  as  our 
equals,  to  harbor  no  spirit  of  separation,  distrust,  or  enmity.  Let  us  be 
bound  and  solidified  by  one  Constitution,  for  one  inseparable  Union,  and 
under  it,  for  the  untrammeled  will  and  rich  heritage  of  its  past  wisdom  and 
glory.  If  we  must  have  a  test  of  loyalty,  let  us  swear  to  each  other  by  every 
star  upon  the  blue  field  of  our  ensign,  by  the  white  radiance  in  which  all 
colors,  red,  white,  blue, —  aye,  and  gray, —  blend  as  one  ;  not,  as  in  the  old 
Italian  code,  by  the  God  who  avenges,  but  as  the  old  Anglo-Saxon  kings 
were  adjured,  by  the  grace  and  mercy  of  His  Son  —  that  good-will  and  full 
amnesty  shall  be  the  spirit  and  aim  of  our  legislation,  in  state  and  Nation ! 


CHAPTER  XXXV. 


POLITICAL  CAMPAIGNS  AND  ISSUES  UP  TO  1876. 

THE  CONTEST  OF  1864  —  McCLELLAN  AND  LINCOLN  —  MILITARY  AND  CIVIC  VIR 
TUES  IN  ISSUE  —ARM-IN-ARM  CONVENTION  —  1868  AND  ITS  ISSUES  ;  —  GOVER 
NOR  SEYMOUR  —  HIS  SPEECHES  AND  CONDUCT  —  THE  PATRIOTISM  OF  THE  DE 
MOCRACY  —  INCREASE  OF  OUR  AREA  AND  POWER  UNDE*R  DEMOCRATIC 
ADMINISTRATION  —  THE  NUMBER  OF  DEMOCRATIC  VOTERS  AND  SOLDIERS 
—  SEYMOUR  DEFEATED  — JUDGE  BLACK  ON  THE  CARPET-BAGGER  —  HORACE 
GREELEY  TRIED,  AS  A  BRIDGE  FOR  HONESTY  AND  AMNESTY  — GREELEY'S 
DEFEAT  ON  AN  INCREASED  VOTE— OTHER  QUESTIONS  OF  FEDERAL  LEG 
ISLATION  —  CIVIL  RIGHTS  —  ECONOMIES  —  CURRENCY  —  BAYONETS  AT  THE 
POLLS  — ABRAM  S.  HEWITTS  SPLENDID  CHAMPIONSHIP  OF  FREEDOM  VER- 
SUS  FORCE  —  ENGLISH  STATUTES  AND  LAW  ON  THE  SUFFRAGE  — ABOLITION 
OF  MILITARY  INTERFERENCE  WITH  ELECTIONS. 

IN  November,  1864,  the  Republican  party  was  called  before  the  people, 
in  the  election  of  a  President.    Its  choice  was  Abraham  Lincoln.    Gen 
eral  McClellan  represented  the  Democracy.     The  campaign  was  that  of 
a  soldier  with    civic  graces  against  a  civilian  with  a  military  policy. 
The  Democrats  discussed  General  McClellan's  treatment  by  the  Administra 
tion.      Had  he  not  been  the  saviour  of  the  capital — a  second  Sobieski,  and 
treated  with   the   same   indignity?     Were  not   other  Democratic   generals 
ignored  ?    Were  not  the  confiscation  policies  cruel  ?    Was  no£  the  destruction 
of  the  Union  sure,  if  the  Republican  plans  of  reconstruction  should  be  carried 
out? 

These  were  the  primates  in  the  procession  of  ideas  in  1864.  But  the 
main  points  for  McClellan,  whose  nomination  at  Chicago  was  seconded  by 
the  author,  were  these  : 

ist.  That  his  policy  was  the  only  correct  and  constitutional  one  for  the 
conduct  of  the  war.  2d.  That  had  it  been  adhered  to,  the  war  would  have 
been  closed  and  the  Union  restored.  3d.  That  owing  to  the  President  and 
his  advisers,  the  fruits  of  his  victories  were  resultless,  and  the  victories  them 
selves  were  snatched  from  him  by  their  intermeddling. 


6l8  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Amidst  the  feebleness  and  fickleness  of  the  Administration,  the  wavering 
support  of  the  President,  and  the  persistent  opposition  of  the  Republicans, 
the  fear,  vanity,  and  trifling  of  those  in  power,  the  daring  interference  and 
secret  persecutions  of  those  who  could  not  understand  his  plans  or  were  de 
termined  to  foil  them  —  McClellan  came  before  the  convention  refined  from 
the  fire.  Calm,  vigilant,  without  rest,  yet  without  haste ;  clear  in  concep 
tion,  vigorous  in  action,  with  a  grasp  of  mind  and  comprehension  of  intel 
lect  possessed  by  few ;  with  a  power  to  organize  confessed  by  all,  and  a 
power  to  execute  rarely  equaled,  he  presented  the  type  of  a  conservative  sol 
dier  whose  views  of  political  necessity  far  outshone  the  disjointed  ideas  of 
the  fanaticism  of  the  day.  Such  a  man  was  this  hero  of  the  people.  He 
had  no  interest  to  subserve  but  that  of  his  country. 

He  was  selected  by  the  Democrats  because  it  was  their  impression  that, 
if  unhindered,  he  would  have  ended  the  war  in  1862.  A  record  of  that  won 
derful  year,  with  his  general  plan  to  strike  all  around  at  once  ;  his  movement 
in  February,  forced  by  the  President,  when  it  was  impossible  at  that  season  ; 
his  protests  ;  his  salvation  of  Washington  ;  the  battles  of  the  Seven  Days  and 
his  campaign  in  Maryland  ;  his  cruel  and  shameless  recall  on  the  roth  of  No 
vember,  1862,  while  moving  after  the  defeated  enemy  ; — all  these  vindicated 
him  as  the  then  best  known  soldier  of  the  Republic.  These  were  evidence 
to  the  country  that  the  radicals  had  determined  to  prolong  the  war  until  the 
last  measure  of  their  policy  should  be  carried  out. 

What,  then,  was  the  remedy  ?  If  the  American  people  desired  peace  with 
union;  a  Union  strong  in  its  members— a  permanent  Union  of  states  as 
sured  of  their  dignity  and  equality,  they  must  defeat  the  Republican  party, 
and  elect  McClellan  ;  they  must  prefer  Democracy  and  its  principles. 

To  this  end  the  Democracy,  in  their  platform  of  1864,  proposed  by  all 
peaceable  means  to  negotiate  for  reunion.  An  armistice  was  not  necessary  to 
open  negotiations.  "  Let  commissioners  be  appointed,"  said  the  Democracy  ; 
"  let  a  Democratic  President  proclaim  the  illegal  proclamations  of  his  pred 
ecessor  null  and  void ;  let  the  sovereign  people  of  each  sovereign  state 
send  their  wisest  men  to  a  grand  national  council,  and  there  take  steps 
toward  the  rebuilding  of  the  shattered  system."  "  Let  this  be  done,"  said 
the  Democracy,  "  and  three  months  will  not  elapse  before  the  hosannas 
of  a  generous  and  Union-loving  people  will  hail  the  advent  of  peace  as  if  it 
were  the  coming  of  a  new  salvation  to  our  world ! "  Well,  did  Southern 
papers,  in  anticipation  of  such  a  time,  prophesy  that  the  accession  of  a  con 
servative  Democrat  like  McClellan,  who  would  repeal  the  obnoxious  procla 
mations,  and  make  overtures  to  the  South  to  return,  with  a  guarantee  of 
constitutional  rights,  be  the  paralysis  of  secession,  and  the  elevation  of  a 
party  to  power  invincible  for  the  Union !  The  Democracy  could  then 
alone  have  established  peace  with  Union.  That  they  would  never 
consent  to  a  peace  based  on  separation,  is  as  true  as  that  they  never 


SLAVERY  MUST  PERISH.  619 

would  have  used  their  power  for  a  war  of  subjugation.  Anxious  for  peace, 
and  ready  to  hail  it  as  a  permanent  condition,  their  legend  was:  "Peace, 
Union,  and  Fraternity." 

On  these  issues,  and  in  that  campaign,  the  Democratic  party  was  de 
feated  and  the  Republican  party  was  sustained.  Passion  was  rife  ;  more 
blood  must  flow.  The  slavery  extremists  brought  on  the  war  —  what  matter 
how?  "Slavery  must  die  the  death  of  violence.  Peace  with  slavery  can 
never  be  in  the  American  Union.  Perish  the  Union  rather  than  that,"  is  the 
verdict,  North.  "Peace  and  Union  without  slavery  can  never  be,"  is  the  cry 
of  the  extremist,  South.  Democracy  submits,  and  says  to  its  sons:  "  The 
Union  shall  not  perish  from  the  Earth."  "We  love  not  slavery  —  let  it  die 
the  death" —  "  Save  the  Union  ! "  "  Save  it  —  but  bind  in  with  your  laurels 
of  victory  the  olives  of  peace  and  reconciliation." 

Since  the  war,  there  have  been  five  Presidential  elections.  In  four  of 
them  the  Democracy  were  worsted.  In  the  fifth  and  last  one  they  came  out 
the  victors.  It  does  not  matter  to  the  present  generation,  nor  to  posterity, 
what  persons  succeeded  to  the  Presidency.  The  main  consideration  is  that 
the  government  should  be  honestly  administered ;  and  that  there  should  be 
no  impediment  to  the  people  in  their  grand  march  for  progress,  prosperity, 
and  happiness.  Many  efforts,  such  as  that  of  the  "  Arm-in- Arm  Conven 
tion"  at  Philadelphia  on  the  i4th  of  August,  1866,  were  made  to  reconcile 
by  sentiment,  what  reconstruction  was  destroying.  The  political  elements 
were  not  then  ready  for  consolidation  against  the  iconoclastic  majority  of 
Congress.  The  activity  of  pulling  down  had  not  then  ceased.  The  well- 
intended  attempts  of  President  Johnson  and  his  Cabinet  for  reconciliation  of  the 
sections,  in  their  tour  over  the  Northern  states  —  ostensibly  made  to  be  present 
at  the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  of  a  monument  to  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  at 
Chicago  —  did  little  more  than  fret  the  body  politic.  Indeed,  they  tended  to 
increase  the  Republican  majorities.  The  radical  legislation  took  a  harsher 
form.  The  demand  to  ratify  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  and  spread  uni 
versal  suffrage  came  in  collision  and  rode  down  ruthlessly  the  impotent 
vetoes  of  the  President.  On  the  question  of  military  or  civil  reconstruction, 
the  result  is  known.  It  appeared  in  the  act  of  March  2,  1867.  The  work 
for  state  rehabilitation  was  retarded.  The  executive  and  legislative  depart 
ments  did  not  harmonize.  Supplemental  acts  came  along,  producing  chaos. 
Reconstruction,  with  its  temperless  mortar,  had  already  begun  its  incongru 
ous  work.  Impeachment  was  threatened  and  it  came.  At  length  the  year 
1868  rolls  round.  It  is  the  year  for  the  choice  of  a  new  President.  Hora 
tio  Seymour  is  nominated  on  the  4th  of  July,  at  New- York  City.  The 
canvass  creates  great  excitement.  The  strife  of  the  war  resounds  again.  It 
is  the  old  clangor  of  "closing  rivets  up "  for  a  desperate  encounter.  The 
questions  at  issue  are  still  those  growing  out  of  the  war.  The  platforms  are 
$ro  and  con,  as  to  the  principles  and  conduct  of  the  Republican  party ;  pro 


62O  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

and  con,  as  to  the  conduct  of  the  Democracy  on  the  war  measures.  The 
action  of  the  Democracy  is  roundly  challenged.  The  action  of  the  Northern 
Democrats  in  the  states  which  were  under  the  control  of  Democratic  execu 
tives  is  fiercely  arraigned  ;  and  that,  too,  in  the  light  of  such  stirring  speeches 
as  Gov.  Horatio  Seymour  made  during  the  war.  Did  any  honest  man  ever 
doubt  his  sincerity  and  patriotism  ?  Where  in  all  the  argumentative  urgency 
of  the  war  period,  was  a  more  faithful  effort  made  for  the  Union  and  Consti 
tution  than  is  embodied  in  his  Brooklyn  speech  ?  It  breathed  the  spirit  of 
patriotism  in  every  line. 

When  Governor  Seymour  sent  his  message  to  the  New-York  Legisla 
ture  during  the  war,  he  illustrated  by  his  acts  as  well  as  his  words,  the  sen 
timents  of  his  party.  He  then  said  : 

"  We  must  accept  the  condition  of  affairs  as  they  stand.  At  this  moment 
the  fortunes  of  our  country  are  influenced  by  the  result  of  battles.  Our 
armies  in  the  field  must  be  supported  —  all  constitutional  demands  of  our 
general  government  must  be  promptly  responded  to.  Under  no  circum 
stances  can  a  division  of  the  Union  be  conceded  !  " 

When  peace  came  he  had  a  policy  of  peace.  Would  it  not  have  been 
wisdom  then,  had  we  accepted  him  with  his  policy?  Courteous,  modest, 
scholarly,  without  stain  upon  his  private  life,  and  without  taint  in  his  pub 
lic  record,  he,  better  than  any  one  within  the  confines  of  the  Republic,  would 
have  administered  its  affairs  with  an  eye  single  to  all  its  interests ;  and 
with  the  sentiment  of  a  patriot  who  recognizes  no  flag  which  has  not  all 
our  stars  upon  its  field  !  He  lives  to  a  good  age,  as  clear  in  intellect  as  when,, 
in  1868,  he  met  the  legions  of  the  mercenary  party. 

But  it  was  not  possible  then  for  men  like  Governor  Seymour — men  who 
were  devoted  to  liberty  —  to  make  good  their  protest  against  the  excesses  of 
the  party  in  power,  and  against  the  crushing  of  liberty  by  the  iron  hand  of 
Congress,  which  had  not  even  a  velvet  glove  to  hide  its  despotic  grasp. 

The  Democratic  party  has  often  been  indicted  for  its  lack  of  patriotism 
and  for  its  lack  of  martial  vigor  during  the  Civil  War.  How  false  the  indict 
ment  !  It  came  from  a  packed  jury  of  public  spoilers.  When  the  history  of 
this  country's  developments  is  considered,  how  easy  it  is  to  refute  such  a 
charge  !  The  expanse  of  the  Republic  alone  refutes  it.  Was  it  not  the  very 
first  Democratic  Administration  that  purchased  from  France  for  fifteen  mil 
lions  of  dollars  the  vast  territory  of  Louisiana?  The  Federal  party  opposed 
that  purchase,  on  the  ground  that  our  territory  was  sufficiently  extended,  and 
the  cost  too  great.  But  out  of  the  vast  territory  then  acquired  under  Jeffer 
son,  what  accrued  to  the  Union?  Answer — The  great  states  of  Louisiana, 
Arkansas,  Missouri,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  Kansas,  Nebraska,  and  Oregon,  the 
Indian  Territory,  and  the  territories  of  Dakota,  Idaho,  Montana,  Wyom 
ing,  and  Washington.  What  party  was  it  that  in  1819,  in  the  administration 
of  Monroe,  purchased  Florida  from  Spain  for  five  millions  of  dollars? 


DEMOCRATIC  EXTENSIONS  OF  THE  UNION.  621 

Answer,  again — The  Democratic  party.  Was  not  this  extension  of  the 
Union  also  bitterly  opposed  by  the  unpatriotic  Federalists?  Again,  what 
party  was  it  that  in  1845  not  only  annexed  Texas, —  an  empire  itself, —  but, 
after  the  war  with  Mexico,  gave  the  great  states  of  California,  Nevada,  and 
Colorado,  and  the  territories  of  Utah,  New  Mexico,  and  Arizona  to  the 
Union?  Answer,  again  —  The  Democratic  party,  in  the  administration  of 
Polk.  Was  not  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  the  war  with  Mexico  opposed 
by  the  Whig  successors  of  the  Federalists  ?  Who  defeated  the  bill  for  the 
purchase  of  Cuba  during  President  Buchanan's  administration?  Answer 
—  The  Republican  Senators  who  were  the  successors  of  both  Federalists  and 
Whigs. 

When  prejudices  are  sought  to  be  aroused  against  the  Democratic  party 
because  of  its  desire  for  peace  in  our  civil  conflict,  let  it  be  remembered  that, 
during  nearly  fifty  years  of  administration,  it  acquired  two  million  two 
hundred  thousand  square  miles  of  valuable  arable  territory,  and  that  its 
acquisitions  cover  two-thirds  of  our  present  national  area.  Compare  to 
these  Democratic  additions  to  the  Union,  Alaska  with  its  higher  and  un- 
cultivable  regions,  purchased  from  Russia  for  seven  millions  ;  —  a  price  not 
too  great,  let  it  be  remembered  to  Mr.  Seward's  credit.  What  have  these 
vast  Democratic  acquisitions  done  for  the  national  industries  in  agriculture, 
stock-raising,  lumbering,  mining,  manufacturing,  and  the  extension  of  our 
commerce  ?  Have  they  not  given  fields  for  these  pursuits  which  would  never 
have  been  opened  if  opposition  to  Democratic  policy  had  succeeded  ?  Have 
not  our  industries  reaped  billions  of  wealth  in  these  fields,  yet  to  be  multi 
plied  from  billions  into  hundreds  of  billions  ?  It  is  not  possible  to  estimate 
the  grandeur  of  that  development  which  has  come  from  the  large-minded 
statesmanship  of  the  Democratic  party.  It  does  not  come  well  from  Repub 
licans  to  say  that  the  Northern  Democrats  would  for  one  moment  consent  to 
a  severance  from  the  Union  of  any  one  of  these  magnificent  acquisitions. 

When  statesmen  like  James  G.  Blaine  devote  their  gifted  pens  and  their 
fluent  rhetoric  to  enhance  the  advantages  to  the  Nation  of  these  territorial 
acquisitions,  when  with  pictorial  and  geographical  illustration  of  artistic 
shadings  he  would  portray  them,  let  that  candor  which  is  so  conspicuous 
throughout  his  volume  take  notice  that  all  the  credit  and  glory  belong  to 
Democratic  administrations.  Then,  perhaps,  he  will  agree  that  the  map 
here  presented  will  prove,  in  some  future  contest,  quite  as  potential  for  the 
historic  party  as  for  its  opponent,  in  political  philosophy,  economy,  thrift, 
and  honesty. 

When  it  is  charged  that  the  Democratic  party  was  derelict  in  the  war 
between  sections  of  our  common  country,  let  it  be  answered,  that  it  furnished 
fully  two-thirds  of  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Union  armies.  As  in  the 
War  of  1812,  and  in  the  Mexican  War,  so  it  sent  its  legions  in  that  war  of 
the  sections.  But  there  was  this  difference  between  it  and  the  Republican 


622  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

party :  it  was  not  impassioned  against  our  Southern  brothers,  and  it  sank  all 
other  considerations  in  devotion  to  the  Union,  and  a  determination  to  maintain 
it  as  it  had  come  down  from  the  Fathers.  If  the  Democracy  had  not  poured 
their  legions  into  the  Union  armies,  where  would  President  Lincoln  and  his 
Cabinet,  and  the  Congress  which  met  in  1861  have  been?  If  the  Northern 
Democrats  were  so  desirous  of  a  peace  with  disunion,  all  they  had  to  do  was 
to  remain  at  home.  Would  they  have  accepted  such  a  peace?  No  !  From 
the  beginning  to  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  over  two  million  one  hundred 
thousand  officers  and  soldiers  volunteered  upon  the  Union  side.  Two-thirds 
of  them  were  Democrats.  Such  a  splendid  illustration  of  patriotism,  history 
never  before  recorded.  It  was  the  Northern  Democrats  who  saved  the 
Union. 

In  spite  of  this  evidence,  the  elections  in  the  North,  up  to  1876,  turned 
upon  the  loyalty  to  the  Union  of  the  Democratic  party  in  and  out  of  Con 
gress.  The  military  heroes  who  went  into  secession  were  glorified  in  Con 
gress  by  such  orators  as  General  Garfield,  in  order  to  derogate  from  their 
civil  courage  and  the  heroism  of  the  Northern  Democracy,  during  and  after 
the  war.  Attempts  were  made  to  revive  the  bad  blood  of  other  times,  or, 
in  the  parlance  of  the  day,  to  u  wave  the  bloody  shirt,"  and  thus  to  regain 
for  the  Republican  party  its  hold  upon  the  public  esteem,  which  was  gradu 
ally  loosening  by  reason  of  the  exposure  of  its  excesses.  The  Northern  De 
mocracy  never  wavered  in  their  principles.  Gallant  in  the  defense  of  their 
opinions,  they  never  failed  to  bear  high  the  flag  of  the  Union,  or  to  show  their 
devotion  to  the  Constitution.  In  the  language  of  a  Southern  statesman,  who 
was  himself  a  soldier  in  the  Confederacy  :  "  The  South  loved  the  Constitu 
tion  more  than  the  Union.  The  Republican  party  may  have  loved  the  Union 
more  than  the  Constitution,  but  it  will  be  written  in  history,  that  the  gallant 
Democracy  of  the  North  were  the  truest  patriots  of  the  land.  They  loved 
both  the  Union  and  the  Constitution,  one  and  indivisible." 

This  statement  might  go  further,  and  still  be  no  more  than  just.  Mr. 
Greeley,  in  his  volume  on  The  Great  Conflict,  informs  us  that  the  great 
body  of  the  men  of  the  South  were  opposed  to  secession.  The  facts  and 
votes  to  prove  this  are  furnished  in  that  volume.  They  prove  how  many  of 
the  men  of  the  Democratic  party  opposed  secession  and  risked  and  lost  their 
lives  for  the  Union.  Who  would  ignore  the  McClellans,  and  Hancocks,  and 
men  of  less  note,  who  maintained  the  vigor  of  our  Federal  system  against 
secession,  and  fought  for  both  Union  and  Constitution?  Let  others  derogate 
from  the  Northern  Democracy,  when  arrogating  to  another  party  all  the 
praise  of  quelling  the  "  so-called "  heroic  rebellion.  In  1860  the  Demo 
cratic  party  divided, — one  great  portion  of  it,  under  Douglas,  represent 
ing  the  Union-constitutional  sentiment,  with  1,365,976  votes,  and  the  other 
representing  the  Southern  sentiment,  with  847,953  votes.  Is  it  manly,  just, 
and  fair  to  ignore  these  Democratic  soldiers  and  those  who  in  Congress 


THE  LOYALTY  OF  THE  NORTHERN  DEMOCRACY.      623 

voted  all  supplies  to  quell  the  insurgency?  When  the  Democracy  were 
sundered  in  1860,  was  there  no  patriotic  principle  for  those  of  the  North  to 
guide  their  conduct?  Is  it  forgotten  that  the  Northern  Democracy,  in  states 
like  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Ohio,  favored  Douglas,  while  the  extreme  states 
of  the  South  only  were  largely  for  Breckenridge  ;  or  that  in  the  three  great 
states  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Ohio,  the  whole  Democratic  vote  was  cast  for 
Douglas,  with  the  exception  of  some  twenty-five  thousand  for  Breckenridge. 

The  Southern  secession  leaders  could  muster  only  about  one-fifth  of  the 
total  vote  of  the  United  States.  The  Northern  Democracy  fought  through 
the  crisis  of  i86o-'6i  and  the  remaining  years  of  trial  and  blood,  as  bravely 
as  those  from  whom  they  parted.  In  Illinois,  seventy-five  votes  were  given 
to  Douglas  to  one  for  his  extreme  Southern  competitor ;  yet  Southern  hero 
ism  was  glorified  in  Congress  by  General  Garfield  in  order  to  detract  from 
his  Northern  Democratic  neighbors.  At  what  particular  time,  for  what 
reason  did  such  gentlemen  learn  to  love  rebellion,  that  they  should  make  an 
apotheosis  to  its  heroism  ?  Ah  !  why  ?  Was  it  because  the  Democrats  of  the 
North  opposed  extra-constitutional  methods  of  conscription  and  confiscation  ; 
or  was  it  because,  since  the  war,  the  Democracy  acted  on  the  spirit  of  for 
giveness  and  favored  amnesty,  so  that  all  might  come  back  under  the  shadow 
of  the  government?  Was  it  because  they  sought  to  make  our  Southern 
brethren  equals  in  the  Union,  when  they  came  back  redeemed  from  their 
prostration  and  the  oppression  of  military  satraps  under  reconstruction  ?  Was 
it  because  Southern  men  joined  with  them  in  making  provision  for  the  back 
pay  and  pensions  of  Union  soldiers  ?  Who  is  sorry  that  Democracy  built  up 
by  generous  policies  the  waste  places  of  the  South,  and  made  a  highway  for 
the  people  who  were  wandering  in  the  mazes  of  test  oaths,  military  force  at 
elections,  and  supervisor  espionage  and  oppression?  Who  now  would  make 
a  desert  or  an  aceldama  of  the  South?  Is  it  honorable  to  deprecate,  de 
nounce,  and  degrade  the  Northern  Democracy?  Does  any  party  need 
require  this?  Did  the  Democracy  fail  in  furnishing  troops  for  the  war? 
Was  it  a  falsehood  when  a  Republican  legislature  of  New- York  gave  Gov 
ernor  Seymour  the  credit  for  even  exceeding  the  call  for  soldiers?  Did 
Democrats  fail  to  pay  their  taxes?  Did  they  fail  in  giving  their  youth,  their 
manhood,  their  sympathy  to  the  Union  which  their  fathers  loved  and  to  the 
Constitution  which  Washington  helped  to  frame  ?  How  can  the  Republican 
statements  be  characterized  ? 

There  is  not  a  soldier,  North  or  South,  who  does  not  refute  the  slanders 
of  the  Republican  party  leaders  against  the  Northern  Democracy.  There  is 
not  one  of  the  200,000  crippled  and  disabled  soldiers  and  sailors,  there  is  not 
a  widow  or  an  orphan  upon  our  pension  rolls,  whose  voice  does  not  vindicate 
the  part  which  the  Northern  Democrats  bore  in  the  salvation  of  the  Repub 
lic  ;  and  time  itself  has  vindicated  the  wisdom,  courage,  and  devotion  of 
their  party. 


624  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

One  would  have  supposed,  with  such  a  record  of  patriotism  and  with  such 
a  candidate  as  Horatio  Seymour,  the  Democratic  party  ought  to  have  seated 
him  in  the  executive  chair  in  1868.  But  sectionalism  and  malevolence  were 
still  vital  and  effective  forces.  Only  eleven  states  with  eighty  electoral  votes 
were  carried  for  Horatio  Seymour,  while  twenty-six  states  with  214  electo 
ral  votes  were  carried  for  General  Grant.  Of  the  popular  vote,  Horatio 
Seymour  received  only  2,713,600,  out  of  5,724,684  votes  cast.  The  day 
of  redemption  was  still  afar  off.  That  day  did  not  dawn  until  every  expe 
dient  known  to  the  laws  of  grace  and  wisdom  was  exhausted. 

In  other  chapters  the  reader  has  been  told  how  reconstruction  laws  were 
passed,  amended,  and  re-amended.  He  has  observed  the  practical  operation 
of  military  and  civil  control  over  a  people  not  unused  to  freedom.  The  fric 
tion  which  led  to  President  Johnson's  impeachment  is  a  part  of  this  record  of 
perpetually  recurring  provocation.  But,  perhaps  no  people  ever  experienced 
such  humiliation  and  degradation  as  were  suffered  by  the  South,  from  the 
rule  of  the  carpet-bagger.  In  its  endeavors  to  reconstruct  the  South  on  a 
partisan  basis,  the  crying  sin  of  the  Republican  party  was  the  vagabond 
qualities  of  its  agents  in  that  section.  In  vain  is  language  to  depict  this 
phase  of  Southern  subjection  against  it.  The  thesaurus  of  our  English 
tongue  may  do  justice  to  the  plagues  of  Egypt ;  but  here  were  plagues  ten 
fold  more  numerous  and  worse.  The  writer  is  compelled  to  call  in  the  opu 
lent  vocabulary  of  Judge  Jeremiah  S.  Black,  to  eke  out,  or  wreak  out,  his 
feebleness  of  expression  in  describing  the  plundering  horde  that  flew  down 
upon  the  South  at  the  close  of  the  war.  Here  is  Judge  Black's  description 
of  the  Republican  agents  in  that  unhappy  section  of  the  Union : 

"  The  people  would  not  have  been  wholly  crushed  either  by  the  soldier 
or  the  negro,  if  both  had  not  been  used  to  fasten  upon  them  the  denomination 
of  another  class  of  persons  which  was  altogether  unendurable.  These  were 
called  carpet-baggers,  not  because  the  word  is  descriptive  or  euphonious,  but 
because  they  have  no  other  name  whereby  they  are  known  among  the  chil 
dren  of  men.  They  were  unprincipled  adventurers  who  sought  their  for 
tunes  in  the  South  by  plundering  the  disarmed  and  defenseless  people  ;  some 
of  them  were  the  dregs  of  the  Federal  army  —  the  meanest  of  the  camp-fol 
lowers  ;  many  were  fugitives  from  Northern  justice  ;  the  best  of  them  were 
those  who  went  down  after  the  peace,  ready  for  any  deed  of  shame  that  was 
safe  and  profitable.  These,  combining  with  a  few  treacherous  «  scalawags/ 
and  some  leading  negroes  to  serve  as  decoys  for  the  rest,  and  backed  by  the 
power  of  the  general  government,  became  the  strongest  body  of  thieves  that 
ever  pillaged  a  people.  Their  moral  grade  was  far  lower,  and  yet  they  were 
much  more  powerful,  than  the  robber-bands  that  infested  Germany  after  the 
close  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  They  swarmed  over  all  the  states,  from  the 
Potomac  to  the  Gulf,  and  settled  in  hordes,  not  with  intent  to  remain  there,  but 
merely  to  feed  on  the  substance  of  a  prostrate  and  defenseless  people.  They 


CARPET-BAG  RULE  OF  THE  SOUTH.  625 

took  whatever  came  within  their  reach,  intruding  themselves  into  all  private 
corporations,  assumed  the  functions  of  all  offices,  including  the  courts  of  jus 
tice,  and  in  many  places  they  even  '  ran  the  churches.'  By  force  and  fraud, 
they  either  controlled  all  elections  or  else  prevented  elections  from  being  held. 
They  returned  sixty  of  themselves  to  one  Congress,  and  ten  or  twelve  of  the 
most  ignorant  and  venal  among  them  were  at  the  same  time  thrust  into  the 
Senate. 

"  This  false  representation  of  a  people  by  strangers  and  enemies,  who  had 
not  even  a  bona  Jide  residence  among  them,  was  the  bitterest  of  all  mock 
eries.  There  was  no  show  of  truth  or  honcr  about  it.  The  pretended  rep 
resentative  was  always  ready  to  vote  for  any  measure  that  would  oppress 
and  enslave  his  so-called  constituents ;  his  hostility  was  unconcealed,  and 
he  lost  no  opportunity  to  do  them  injury.  Under  all  these  wrongs  and  in 
dignities,  the  Caucasian  men  of  the  South  were  prudent,  if  not  patient.  No 
brave  people,  accustomed  to  be  free,  ever  endured  oppression  so  peacefully 
or  so  wisely.  The  Irish,  with  less  provocation,  were  in  a  state  of  perpetual 
turbulence  ;  the  Poles  were  always  conspiring  against  the  milder  rule  of  their 
Russian  masters ;  but  Southern  men  '  made  haste  slowly '  to  recover  their 
liberties.  They  could  not  break  the  shackles  of  usurped  control ;  some  of  the 
links  gradually  rusted  and  fell  away  of  themselves.  The  gross  impolicy  of 
desolating  the  fairest  half  of  the  country  impressed  itself  more  and  more  upon 
the  Northern  mind  ;  the  mere  expense,  in  money,  of  maintaining  this  vulgar 
tyranny  became  disgusting.  The  negroes  gradually  opened  their  eyes  to  the 
truth  that  they  were  as  badly  imposed  upon  as  the  whites.  With  consum 
mate  skill,  the  natural  leaders  of  the  people  hoarded  every  fresh  acquisition 
of  self-governing  power.  State  after  state  deposed  its  corrupt  governors,  by 
impeachment  or  otherwise,  and  brought  its  official  criminals  to  justice,  until 
all  were  redeemed  except  Florida,  South  Carolina,  and  Louisiana.  A  more 
particular  look  at  the  condition  of  the  last  named  state  is  needed,  because  it 
was  the  principal  theatre  of  the  4  Great  Fraud.' 

u  The  agricultural  and  commercial  wealth  of  Louisiana  made  her  a  strong 
temptation  to  the  carpet-baggers.  Those  vultures  sniffed  the  prey  from 
afar ;  and,  as  soon  as  the  war  was  over,  they  swooped  down  upon  her  in 
flocks  that  darkened  the  air.  The  state  was  delivered  into  their  hands  by 
the  military  authorities,  but  the  officers  imposed  some  restraints  upon  their 
lawless  cupidity.  They  ha^Jed  with  delight  the  advent  of  negro  suffrage,  be 
cause  to  them  it  was  merely  a  legalized  method  of  stuffing  the  ballot-box,  and 
they  stuffed  it.  Thenceforth,  and  down  to  a  very  recent  period,  they  gorged 
themselves  without  let  or  hinderance.  The  depredations  they  committed 
were  frightful.  They  appropriated,  on  one  pretense  or  another,  whatever 
they  could  lay  their  hands  on,  and  then  pledged  to  themselves  the  credit  of 
the  state  for  uncounted  millions  more.  The  public  securities  ran  down  to 
half-price,  and  still  they  put  their  fraudulent  bonds  on  the  market  and  sold 


626        THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

them  for  what  they  would  fetch.  The  owners  of  the  best  real  estate,  in 
town  or  country,  were  utterly  impoverished,  because  the  burdens  upon  it 
were  heavier  than  the  rents  would  discharge.  During  the  last  ten  years,  the 
city  of  New  Orleans  paid,  in  the  form  of  direct  taxes,  more  than  the  esti 
mated  value  of  all  the  property  within  her  limits,  and  still  has  a  debt  of 
equal  amount  unpaid.  It  is  not  likely  that  other  parts  of  the  state  suffered 
less.  The  extent  of  their  spoliation  can  hardly  be  calculated,  but  the  testi 
mony  of  the  carpet-baggers  themselves  against  one  another,  the  reports  of 
committees  sent  by  Congress  to  investigate  the  subject,  and  other  informa 
tion  from  sources  entirely  authentic  make  it  safe  to  say  that  a  general  confla 
gration,  sweeping  over  all  the  state  from  one  end  to  the  other  and  destroy 
ing  every  building  and  every  article  of  personal  property,  would  have  been 
a  visitation  of  mercy  in  comparison  to  the  curse  of  such  a  government. 
This  may  seem  at  first  blush  like  gross  exaggeration,  because  it  is  worse  than 
anything  that  misrule  ever  did  before." 

Was  there  ever  in  the  language  of  vituperation,  such  an  indictment 
against  such  a  class  ?  Was  there  ever  in  the  memories  of  a  crushed  people, 
such  a  truthful  statement  of  burdens  too  grievous  to  be  borne  ?  Let  the  con 
clusion  of  this  great  lawyer  answer.  The  language  quoted  is  from  Judge 
Black's  essay  on  the  Electoral  Commission,  entitled  "The  Great  Fraud  of 
1876."  Here  is  another  passage  from  it:  "  The  greediest  of  Roman  pro 
consuls  left  something  to  the  provinces  they  wasted ;  the  Norman  did  not 
strip  the  Saxon  quite  to  the  skin  ;  the  Puritans  under  Cromwell  did  not  ut 
terly  desolate  Ireland.  Their  rapacity  was  confined  to  the  visible  things 
which  they  could  presently  handle  and  use.  They  could  not  take  what  did 
not  exist.  But  the  American  carpet-bagger  has  an  invention  unknown  to 
those  old-fashioned  robbers,  which  increases  his  stealing  power  as  much  as 
the  steam-engine  adds  to  the  mechanical  force  of  mere  natural  muscles.  He 
makes  negotiable  bonds  of  the  state,  signs  and  seals  them,  '  according  to  the 
forms  of  law,'  sells  them,  converts  the  proceeds  to  his  own  use,  and  then 
defies  justice  4  to  go  behind  the  returns/  By  this  device,  his  felonious  fin 
gers  are  made  long  enough  to  reach  into  the  pockets  of  posterity  ;  he  lays  his 
lien  on  property  yet  uncreated  ;  he  anticipates  the  labor  of  coming  ages  and 
appropriates  the  fruits  of  it  in  advance  ;  he  coins  the  industry  of  future  gen 
erations  into  cash,  and  snatches  the  inheritance  from  children  whose  fathers 
are  unborn.  Projecting  his  cheat  forward  by  this  contrivance,  and  operating 
latterly  at  the  same  time,  he  gathers  an  amount  of  plunder  which  no  country 
in  the  world  would  have  yielded  to  the  Goth  or  the  Vandal." 

What  did  the  prostrate  states  do  under  their  trials  and  tortures?  Sub 
mit?  Yes — measurably.  They  hid  in  "  Klans."  They  rode  at  night  to 
confer.  They  appealed  in  vain  for  relief  to  the  Federal  conquerors,  and  the 
dominant  party  in  the  North.  In  vain  their  appeal  for  a  stay  of  the  plague. 

Failing  with  Horatio  Seymour  as  a  candidate,  the  people  were  attracted 


THE  REASONS  FOR  GREELEY'S  NOMINATION.  627 

to  the  great  journalist  of  New- York  City  —  Horace  Greeley.  His  fore 
sight  and  kindness  had  taught  him  the  larger  lessons  that  belong  to  charity 
and  peace.  He  knew,  too,  that  the  responsibility  for  the  great  conflict  was 
a  divided  one  ;  and  that  justice  as  well  as  mercy  required  that  his  active 
mind,  his  generous  heart,  his  trenchant  pen,  and  his  philanthropic  soul 
should  rise  above  party  malignities  and  successes,  to  the  end  that  the  country 
should  be  saved.  After  much  discussion,  and  some  reluctance,  on  the  part 
of  the  Baltimore  Convention,  the  editor  of  the  Tribune  appeared  before  the 
Nation  as  the  Democratic  banner-bearer,  with  amnesty  in  his  heart,  and  with 
rare  gifts  of  utterance  for  reconciliation. 

Two  years  before  Horace  Greeley's  nomination  for  the  Presidency,  the 
writer  had  the  honor  to  contest  successfully  a  congressional  district  in  New- 
York  City  with  him.  The  contest  turned  on  economic  questions  ;  for  both 
candidates  were  in  harmony  upon  one  thought  —  that  liberal  Democrats 
and  liberal  Republicans  should  join  at  once,  and  heartily,  to  save  the  South 
from  the  disorders  and  horrors  of  the  existing  rule  of  the  adventurers  who 
were  gleaning  by  robbery  all  that  the  scythe  of  war  had  left  to  the  Southern 
land.  The  subsequent  candidacy  of  Mr.  Greeley  for  the  Presidency  had 
certain  good  effects.  There  were  fearful  and  formidable  evils  which  had 
grown  out  of  the  war  by  the  misuse  of  official  patronage,  and  the  lack  of 
accountability.  These  were  demoralizing  our  whole  political  life.  The 
issues  were  turned  out  of  the  miry  road  of  the  vulgar,  corrupt,  and  fero 
cious  scramble  for  spoils,  into  a  contest  for  a  benign  principle.  As  it  was 
happily  phrased  by  Mr.  Parke  Godwin,  it  was  the  contest  for  a  composite 
democratic  Republic,  in  which  the  supremacy  of  the  Union,  the  independ 
ence  of  the  several  states,  and  the  liberty  of  the  individual  should  be  alike 
requisite  and  indispensable,  each  in  its  place,  to  the  harmonious  working  of 
the  whole. 

But  there  was  a  disaffected  element  in  the  Democratic  ranks  which  would 
not  accept  the  nomination  of  Mr  Greeley.  The  reform  Democratic  party 
was  called  a  "  mended  and  frayed  strand"  of  its  old  tissue  ;  but  if  any  two 
things  were  then  most  needed,  it  was  the  mending  of  the  frayed  tissues  of 
Federal  government,  and  the  conduct  of  administration,  North  and  South, 
by  honest  men.  Who  was  there  to  make  whole  the  torn  garments  of  the 
Union?  Who  more  inspired  with  the  true  genius  of  reconstruction  than 
honest  Horace  Greeley,  in  whom  it  was  incarnate  ?  He  had,  ever  since  Lee's 
surrender,  and  before  it  also,  u  pleaded  against  the  party  of  enduring  hate, 
and  the  wrath  engendered  by  a  bloody  civil  war." 

When  the  author  began  his  canvass  for  Congress  in  1872,  he  placed  the 
issue  upon  these  grounds,  in  regard  to  the  Presidential  candidacy:  "The 
Democracy,"  said  he,  "  should  remember  that,  while  in  the  heat  and  dust  of 
other  strifes  Horace  Greeley  has  not  spared  them,  yet,  in  generous  rivalry, 
he  has  endeavored  with  them  to  pursue  the  paths  of  peace.  With  a  life  of 


628  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

unusual  activity,  a  pen  of  masculine  vigor,  a  mannerism  not  at  all  lacking  in 
the  simplicity  needed  in  high  places,  coming  from  the  people  as  a  poor 
and  friendless  but  brave  boy,  into  the  heart  and  swirl  of  a  great  metropo 
lis,  he  has  left  his  impress  on  this  country.  If  elected  he  will,  under  God, 
impress  his  administration  with  sentiments  mellowed  by  new  associations, 
with  charities  silvered  over  by  advancing  years,  and  with  a  reverence  for  the 
hallowed  traditions  of  our  early  national  career,  made  glorious  by  that 
Democracy  which  has  in  the  vicissitudes  of  parties  become  his  ally  in  that 
progress,  and  a  sharer  in  the  common  blessings  and  glories  which  his  admin 
istration  would  bestow.  The  fullness  of  those  blessings  will  come  to  our 
country,  because  they  will  be  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  reconciliation." 

But  old  party  prejudices  were  inveterate,  and  the  Republican  reconstruc 
tion  plan  prevailed.  General  Grant  was  supposed  to  be  in  accord  with  that 
plan ;  civil  governments  South  were  still  disorganized ;  lawlessness  South 
begat  timidity  North  ;  the  military  spirit  was  still  rife  and  rampant ;  and  the 
issues  of  the  war  were  still  uppermost  in  men's  minds.  With  Henry  Wilson 
as  his  associate,  Gen.  Ulysses  S.  Grant,  the  invincible,  was  again  elected 
President  by  a  great  majority,  and  on  the  largest  increase  of  a  national  vote 
since  1828.  The  increase  was  38.3  per  centum  over  that  of  the  year  1868. 

Mr.  Greeley  did  not  long  survive  this  defeat.  His  self-abnegation,  labor, 
and  earnestness  during  the  canvass  were  a  fit  sequel  to  his  three  decades  of 
leadership  in  American  philanthropy,  journalism,  and  politics.  He  died 
from  exhaustion,  aged  sixty-one,  in  less  than  a  month  after  the  election. 

In  the  next  campaign,  Democracy  was  as  indomitable  as  ever.  Its  lead 
ers  knew  that  the  memories  of  the  sanguinary  war  could  not  be  perpetuated. 
They  now  began  to  force  a  discussion  of  practical  politics  ;  for,  as  1876  ap 
proached,  some  of  the  old  questions  faded  into  twilight,  while  others  gleamed 
forth  with  an  unpleasant  glare. 

There  was  a  great  change  in  the  details  of  politics  toward  the  conclusion 
of  the  second  decade.  The  questions  which  began  to  give  concern  related 
not  so  much  to  Federal  unity  as  to  the  vitality  and  vigor  of  our  institutions. 
Federal  officers,  under  partisan  legislation,  were  more  and  more  aggressive 
in  assuming  relations  with  suffrage  that  were  incompatible  with  its  existence. 
This  overruling  question,  together  with  the  effect  of  pardon  upon  those 
engaged  in  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  the  attempts  made  in  and  out  of 
Congress  for  general  and  particular  amnesty,  and  especially  for  the  repeal  of 
that  odium  of  all  the  annals  of  time  —  the  test  oath  —  became  the  leading 
issues  of  the  campaign.  Among  other  questions,  came  up  the  Civil  Rights 
bill.  That  bill  was  much  vaunted  as  a  measure  of  reconstruction.  It  had 
been  enacted  to  assist  the  fortunes  of  the  party  in  power.  It  proved  a  delu 
sion  in  practice.  It  was  defended  on  the  ground  of  the  equality  of  all 
persons,  regardless  of  the  province  of  the  state  or  local  authorities  over 
social  relations.  It  was  said  by  so  eminent  a  Republican  as  Gen.  Joseph  R. 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  QUESTION  IN  POLITICS.  629 

Hawley,  that  he  voted  for  that  measure  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not 
ashamed  to  sleep  in  a  tavern,  or  go  to  a  theatre,  or  be  buried  in  a  grave-yard 
with  his  colored  brother.  He  forgot  that  this  was  not  the  question.  It  was 
as  to  the  function  of  the  Federal  Government.  The  Civil  Rights  bill  was 
defended  on  the  ground  that  the  new  amendments  of  the  Constitution 
required  such  legislation.  This  was  adjudicated  finally  two  years  ago,  but 
such  decisions  as  were  previously  had  —  as  in  the  Slaughter  House  cases  — 
declare  that  the  amendments  are  prohibitions  on  the  states,  and  not  grants  of 
power  to  the  Federal  Government,  and  therefore  that  domestic  matters  are 
not  to  be  regulated  by  Federal  law.  It  would  be  an  absurdity  to  declare  by 
act  of  Congress  what  kind  of  food  or  drink  or  rules  Should  obtain  in  a  tav 
ern  ;  or  whether  our  theatres  should  play  farce  or  tragedy,  Shakespeare  or 
Boucicault —  "  Raising  the  Wind"  or  the  "  Big  Bonanza." 

In  connection  with  these  social  measures  there  came  to  the  front  with 
the  velocity  and  force  of  an  explosion,  the  question  of  the  effect  of  the  cur 
rency  and  other  Federal  legislation  on  the  business  interests  of  the  Nation. 

Aside  from  the  condition  of  the  South,  the  leading  propositions  which 
attracted  the  attention  of  Congress  during  the  last  part  of  the  second  decade 
and  the  first  part  of  the  third,  were  those  for  the  resumption  of  specie  pay 
ments,  the  regulation  of  paper  currency,  and  the  modification  of  the  tariff  and 
internal  revenue  laws.  These  were  questions  of  living  concern  to  the  people. 
Nevertheless,  as  in  the  past,  and  even  as  late  as  the  campaign  of  1880,  the 
Republican  party  in  the  campaign  of  the  Centennial  year  of  the  Republic 
made  its  stand  on  memories  of  sectional  strife,  and  the  alleged  disloyalty  of 
the  Democratic  party,  and  the  customary  false  accusation  of  recusancy  in  the 
South  with  respect  to  the  results  of  the  war. 

The  war  memories,  however,  could  not  last  forever.  The«re  must  be  a 
time  for  the  anodyne  of  oblivion.  The  form,  structure,  system,  genius,  and 
polity  of  our  government  were  more  or  less  called  in  question,  as  well  as  im 
periled  by  other  practical  infidelities  to  our  social  and  political  order.  There 
were  terrible  strains  put  upon  the  elective  franchise  by  the  bayonet  power 
in  the  South,  and  Federal  supervisors  in  the  North,  which  gave  a  tension, 
almost  to  the  snapping  point.  Such  excesses  met  with  heroic  resistance. 
The  contest  of  liberty-loving  men  against  the  use  of  the  army  at  the  polls 
was  begun  at  the  end  of  the  war.  The  first  great  effort  was  made  by  Laza 
rus  W.  Powell,  of  Kentucky.  His  efforts  and  speech  are  forever  associated 
with  the  Democratic  protests  against  this  unbridled  race  for  power,  over  the 
ruins  of  elective  liberty.  A  modicum  of  relief  came  after  the  war,  from  the 
repressive  measures  which  forbade  all  election  or  choice  by  the  people  of 
the  prostrate  states.  The  question  took  a  more  substantial  form  after  the 
election  of  1876.  The  movement  was  led  and  the  liberty  of  the  suffragist 
championed  in  the  House  of  Representatives  by  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  of  New- 
York. 


630  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

A  statement  of  the  facts  with  regard  to  this  struggle  in  Congress  for  the 
repeal  of  the  war  legislation  which  authorized  the  Executive  to  use  the  army 
at  the  polls,  and  thereby  influence  the  result  of  elections  and  control  the  suf 
frage  of  the  people,  is  important. 

Mr.  Hewitt  was  chairman  of  the  national  committee  which  conducted 
the  Presidential  campaign  of  1876.  The  outcome  of  that  campaign  will 
appear  in  the  subsequent  chapters.  It  terminated  in  the  fraudulent  inaugu 
ration  of  Hayes  as  President  by  methods  unknown  to  the  constitution.  Mr. 
Hewitt's  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  convinced  him  that  this  result 
was  only  made  possible  by  the  despotic  use  of  the  army  in  several  of  the 
states,  but  particularly  in  Louisiana.  His  soul  was  stirred  with  indignation. 
He  feared,  and  with  reason,  lest  free  government  should  perish  in  the  land, 
unless  the  power  to  use  the  troops  at  the  polls  were  abolished.  He  deter 
mined  to  devote  himself  to  the  supreme  duty  of  repealing  the  legislation 
which  had  made  a  national  fraud  triumphant  for  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  the  country.  The  movement  was  inaugurated  by  the  insertion  of  a  pro 
vision  in  the  bill  for  the  support  of  the  army.  It  was  framed  at  the  second 
session  of  the  Forty-second  Congress.  It  forbade  the  use  of  the  army  for  the 
purpose  of  sustaining  the  so-called  state  government  of  Packard  in  Louisiana. 
The  provision  referred  to  was  nardly  broad  enough  to  meet  the  necessities 
of  the  case.  Nevertheless  it  caused  the  loss  of  the  bill.  The  army  was 
maintained  from  July  until  October,  1877*  without  lawful  appropriations. 
President  Hayes  called  an  extra  session  of  Congress.  It  met  in  October. 
To  Mr.  Hewitt,  then  comparatively  a  new  member,  had  been  assigned  a 
position  on  the  most  important  committee  of  the  House.  To  him  was  con 
fided  the  Army  bill.  A  reference  to  the  debates  will  show  that  the  bill 
reported  contained  no  provision  whatever  as  to  the  use  of  the  troops,  and 
that  notice  was  given  that  at  the  regular  session,  beginning  in  December 
following,  a  proposition  would  be  made  for  the  repeal  of  the  obnoxious 
legislation.  At  the  second  session  Mr.  Hewitt,  as  before,  was  placed  in 
charge  of  the  Army  bill.  Proctor  Knott,  now  governor  of  Kentucky,  was 
made  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee.  Mr.  Hewitt  consulted  with 
him  as  to  the  form  of  the  provision  which  he  should  offer  as  an  amendment 
prohibiting  the  use  of  the  army  as  a  posse  comitatus  in  civil  proceedings. 
Such  a  provision  was  drafted.  It  was  arranged  that  Mr.  Knott  should  offer 
it  as  an  amendment  to  the  Army  bill  which  Mr.  Hewitt  would  report.  The 
amendment  was  offered.  It  was  ruled  in  order.  It  was  adopted  by  the 
House.  It  was  rejected  by  the  Senate  ;  and  then  the  bill  went  into  confer 
ence.  The  result  was  the  adoption  of  the  bill  containing  the  posse  comitatus 
clause.  The  first  step  was  thus  successfully  achieved. 

In  the  third  and  final  session  of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress,  this  indefat 
igable  statesman  followed  up  his  success.  He  determined  to  secure  the  re 
peal  of  the  sections  of  the  Revised  Statutes  which  permitted  the  use  of  the 


ABRAM  S.  HEWITT'S  GREAT  SPEECH  FOR  A  FREE  BALLOT.     631 

troops  at  the  polls.  In  the  speech  which  he  made  on  the  introduction  of  the 
Army  bill  on  the  ist  of  February,  1879,  will  be  found  a  brief  history  of  the 
previous  legislation,  and  a  statement  of  the  condition  of  the  question  at  the 
time  of  the  introduction  of  the  bill.  It  is  well  to  know  how  strongly  fortified 
the  New- York  member  was  as  to  the  technical  and  legal  effect  of  his  move 
ments.  He  had  conferred  with  Mr.  David  Dudley  Field.  That  eminent 
publicist  had  contributed  to  the  Albany  Law  Journal,  in  September,  1877, 
at  Mr.  Hewitt's  suggestion,  an  exhaustive  paper  upon  this  subject.  In  fact, 
public  opinion  was  ripe  for  the  removal  of  all  impediments  to  free  elections. 
The  repealing  amendment  was  offered,  and,  strange  to  say,  it  was  not  objected 
to.  If  amenable  to  a  point  of  order,  none  was  made.  It  passed  the  House 
without  a  division.  The  bill  went  to  the  Senate.  There  this  provision,  as 
well  as  the  clause  looking  to  the  reorganization  of  the  army,  was  rejected. 
The  bill  went  into  conference.  It  was  soon  found  that  upon  every  point  of 
difference  there  could  be  agreement,  except  the  provision  which  repealed  the 
power  to  employ  troops  at  the  polls.  In  the  conference  committee,  Mr. 
Blaine  appeared  as  the  determined  advocate  for  the  retention  of  this  power, 
while  Mr.  Hewitt  and  Mr.  Sparks, — the  present  Land  Commissioner,  then 
chairman  of  Military  Affairs, —  insisted  upon  the  repeal  as  adopted  by  the 
House.  Three  conference  committees  wete  appointed.  They  failed  to 
agree.  On  the  3d  of  March,  1879,  Mr.  Hewitt  announced  the  final  disagree 
ment. 

His  speech  on  that  occasion  was  resplendent  with  the  spirit  of  devotion 
to  civil  liberty.  In  it,  with  admirable  vigor  of  argument  and  eloquent 
beauty  of  appeal,  he  supported  the  Democratic  position  that  it  should  no 
longer  be  lawful  for  a  soldier  to  be  at  a  polling-place  on  the  day  of  election. 
His  words  deserve  to  be  repeated  whenever  and  wherever  the  story  of  the 
struggle  is  told.  Mr.  Hewitt  said  :  u  The  issue  involves  the  very  essence  of 
free  government.  The  difference  between  a  despotic  government  and  a  free 
government  is  this :  in  a  despotism,  the  military  power  is  superior  to  the 
civil ;  in  a  free  government,  the  civil  dominates  the  military  power.  The 
latter  principle  is  one  which  we  never  fought  for ;  it  came  to  us  as  an  inher 
itance  from  our  fathers.  It  was  so  well  recognized  that  when  the  Constitution 
was  formed  it  was  not  even  deemed  necessary  to  insert  an  article  to  that 
effect.  But,  as  a  protection  against  military  interference,  provision  was  made 
that  citizens  might  bear  arms,  and  that  no  soldiers  should  be  quartered  upon 
them  without  their  consent.  No  English-speaking  man  for  two  hundred 
years  has  questioned  the  principle  that  soldiers  should  never  be  present  at 
the  polls ;  and  the  question  could  never  have  been  raised  in  this  country, 
the  demand  could  never  have  been  made  in  our  land,  but  for  the  calamity  of 
a  civil  war.  In  time  of  civil  war  many  political  rights  must  be  surrendered 
to  the  necessities  of  the  conflict.  And  so  it  was  here.  We  surrendered  the 
right  we  had  inherited,  and  which  up  to  that  hour  we  had  exercised,  that 


632  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

no  soldier  should  show  himself  at  the  polls.  We  surrendered  that  safeguard 
as  we  surrendered  many  other  things  that  were  dear  to  us.  A  convertible 
currency,  specie  payments,  almost  every  traditional  right,  disappeared  in  the 
presence  of  the  great  danger  with  which  we  were  confronted. 

"  Now,  for  fifteen  long  years  we  have  been  striving  to  recover  that  lost 
ground.  We  have  made  gigantic  efforts,  sacrifices  such  as  the  world  never 
saw,  to  get  back  to  the  resumption  of  specie  payments  ;  and  yet  we  have 
done  nothing  for  the  resumption  of  our  political  rights,  the  rights  which 
lie  at  the  very  foundation  of  this  government.  It  is  a  reproach  to  our  patriot 
ism  that  the  resumption  of  specie  payments  should  have  preceded  the  re 
sumption  of  the  rights  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  free  government. 
It  is  an  imputation  upon  this  liberty-loving  people  and  its  representatives 
that  they  have  allowed  the  time  to  pass  by  until  now. 

"  Can  we  surrender  this  question?  Would  we  be  justified  by  the  people 
of  this  country,  now  that  the  issue  has  been  raised,  in  conceding  the  princi 
ple  in  time  of  profound  peace,  fifteen  years  after  the  close  of  a  civil  war, 
that  soldiers  may  be  ordered  by  an  executive  power  to  the  polls  on  the  day 
of  an  election?  Of  all  men  in  the  House,  I  am  most  anxious  that  there 
shall  be  no  extra  session  ;  I  have  everything  to  lose  and  nothing  to  gain  by 
it.  All  that  I  have  in  the  world  is  engaged  in  business  operations  which 
are  always  damaged  by  extra  sessions  of  Congress.  But  there  are  things 
greater  than  money,  greater  than  profits,  —  without  which  money  disappears 
and  profits  are  an  illusion,  —  things  for  which  men  have  sacrificed  for 
tune  and  family  and  life  in  every  age  of  the  world,  and  the  greatest  of  all  is 
the  right  of  self-government.  This  question  in  respect  to  this  bill  lies  at  the 
very  foundation  of  the  struggle  for  civil  liberty  which  has  lasted  since  govern 
ments  first  began,  and  survives,  as  this  scene  bears  witness,  to  this  very  hour. 

"  The  issue  thus  made  is  one  which  we  are  ready  to  accept  before  the 
country.  Let  the  people  decide  whether  they  are  prepared  to  surrender  the 
sacred  right  of  untrammeled  suffrage  which  this  bill  seeks  to  guard !  Un 
less  the  blood  which  courses  in  our  veins  has  degenerated  from  the  vital  fluid 
which  has  made  the  Anglo-Saxon  people  great  and  free,  I  cannot  doubt  the 
result  of  the  appeal  which  I  now  make  to  the  country." 

The  Forty-fifth  Congress  adjourned  without  passing  any  bill  for  the  sup 
port  of  the  army.  An  extra  session  was  thus  rendered  necessary.  The 
honored  member  from  New- York  was  not  a  member  of  the  Forty-sixth  Con 
gress.  He,  therefore,  took  no  part  in  the  great  debate  which  resulted  in  the 
final  achievement  of  the  repeal.  But  his  long  and  earnest  fight,  prompted 
by  the  purest  patriotism,  love  of  equity,  honor,  and  law,  was  of  paramount 
importance  to  the  settlement  of  this  fundamental  question  involving  the  ob 
scuration  of  the  liberties  of  the  people  and  the  brutalizing  excesses  of  force 
against  the  muniments  of  freedom. 

The  antagonism  of  Mr.  Blaine  to  the  dissipation  of  this  eclipse  of  liberty 


MR.  ELAINE  AND  MR.  HEWITT  AS  PARTY  EXPONENTS.          633 

by  the  baleful  orb  of  despotic  force,  represents  truly  his  position  and  that  of 
those  who  voted  with  him  for  the  perpetuation  of  this  menace  by  the  bayonet 
upon  the  free  will  of  the  voter.  The  opposite  position,  well  bastioned  by 
the  persistent  labor  and  spirit  of  Mr.,  Hewitt,  defines  with  equal  zeal  and 
signal  ability  the  status  of  the  Democratic  party,  —  whose  platforms  even 
yet  glorify  the  achievement  of  free  suffrage,  which  is  one  of  the  crown  jewels 
of  our  sovereignty. 

In  February,  1875,  the  writer  addressed  the  House  at  length  on  this  and 
kindred  themes.  The  speech  was  from  the  text:  "Force  or  Freedom!" 
This  title  suggests  its  logic.  The  long  decade  of  mockery,  with  its  military, 
with  its  commissions,  its  menaces  to  legislatures,  and  its  "regulation"  of 
elections,  was  exhaustively  handled.  The  inestimable  value  of  the  franchise, 
is  recognized  in  "leading  cases"  for  over  three  hundred  years  in  English 
jurisprudence.  It  can  never  be  abridged  or  destroyed  without  sacrificing 
order,  peace,  and  liberty  ;  and  when  these  are  gone,  chaos  has  come.  This 
was  the  vein  of  the  discourse. 

It  was  in  1871,  on  a  bill  to  amend  the  election  law,  that  the  writer  began 
to  do  his  humble  part  in  this  line  of  enfranchisement.  He  denounced  all 
efforts  to  enforce  Republican  rule  by  military  domination  over  the  ballot. 
At  that  time,  the  Democrats  were  hardly  one-third  of  the  House,  but  they 
believed  that  the  body  of  the  voters  was  with  them  ;  and  yet,  in  defiance  of 
all  the  traditions  and  histories  of  public  and  private  liberty  since  public  and 
private  liberty  had  life,  violent  interference  with  the  voter  was  persisted  in. 

The  Athenian  law  was  that  the  man  who  interfered  in  any  way  with 
"elections,"  in  which  choice  must  be  free,  should  suffer  death.  When  a 
stranger  interfered  in  the  assemblies  of  the  Athenian  democracy  he  was 
esteemed  guilty  of  a  high  crime.  He  was  a  usurper  of  rights  of  sovereignty 
to  which  he  had  no  title.  This  was  in  a  pure  democracy,  where  the  popu 
lace  assembled  in  the  Bema  and  decided  directly,  after  the  orators  and 
statesmen  had  presented  the  questions  of  public  policy.  In  a  representative 
government  like  that  of  England,  the  laws  have  been  strict  to  guard  against 
the  abuse  of  the  franchise  by  fraud  and  force.  We  know  that  the  common 
law  of  England  gave  a  remedy  to  the  voter  wrongfully  repulsed  from  the 
polls.  The  leading  case,  which  has  been  followed  by  our  courts  even  when 
there  has  been  no  statutory  remedy,  is  that  of  Asby  vs.  White,  in  which 
Judge  Holt  uses  this  lofty  language  : 

"  And  surely  it  cannot  be  said  that  this  is  so  inconsiderable  a  right  as  to 
apply  that  maxim  to  it,  de  minimis  non  curat  lex.  A  right  that  a  man  has 
to  vote  at  the  election  of  a  person  to  represent  him  in  Parliament,  there  to 
concur  to  the  making  of  laws  which  are  to  bind  his  liberty  and  property,  is  a 
most  transcendent  thing,  and  of  a  high  nature." 

But  lest  this  common  law  right  should  prove  no  adequate  remedy  for  the 
wrongful  proceedings  at  elections,  the  English  statute  made  it  a  high  penalty 
40 


634  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

for  any  soldier  to  be  quartered  near  the  polls.  He  must  be  at  least  one  mile 
off.  In  Blackstone,  Tucker's  edition,  volume  2,  page  179,  the  law  is  thus 
stated : 

"  As  soon,  therefore,  as  the  time  and  place  of  election,  either  in  counties 
or  boroughs,  are  fixed,  all  soldiers  quartered  in  the  place  are  to  remove,  at 
least  one  day  before  the  election,  to  the  distance  of  two  miles  or  more,  and 
not  to  return  till  one  day  after  the  poll  is  ended." 

It  is  further  required  that  the  Secretary  of  State  for  War,  or  the  party 
who  for  the  time  being  is  acting  as  Secretary,  shall  issue  his  orders  to  remove 
all  soldiers  from  places  of  voting,  and  if  he  fail  to  do  so  he  is  to  be  dismissed 
and  to  be  forever  disqualified  from  holding  office  in  England. 

So  that  this  "  transcendent  thing"  of  untrammeled  voting  is  guarded  not 
only  by  the  maxims  of  the  common  law,  but  by  stringent  penalties  in  English 
legislation.  These  penalties  were  the  result  of  that  jealousy  which  the 
Commons  entertained  for  their  constituents  against  kingcraft.  Our  fathers 
received  the  same  maxims,  and  endeavored  to  institute  the  same  safeguards. 
The  messages  of  our  early  Presidents  are  full  of  this  jealousy  of  military 
powers.  It  was  reserved  for  the  Republican  party  to  disregard  all  these 
maxims  and  muniments  of  free  elections  and  popular  liberty.  Is  not  the 
right  of  free  election,  of  uncontrolled  choice,  inconsistent  with  force?  Is 
not  the  bayonet  directly  the  enemy  of  the  ballot  ?  Are  we  not  cherishing 
what  has  been  handed  down  to  us  in  our  history  and  Constitution,  when  we 
are  jealous  of  the  subordination  of  the  civil  to  the  military  power?  And 
should  we  not,  therefore,  upon  the  principles  of  logic,  ethics,  law,  and  pat 
riotism,  oppose  every  attack  on  the  freedom  of  the  ballot? 

In  the  same  connection,  the  Federal  supervisors  of  elections  and  their 
abettors,  came  under  the  condemnation  of  the  vigilant  congressional  Democ 
racy.  What  a  humiliation  to  an  American  citizen  it  was,  to  see  hirelings,  like 
the  tatterdemalions  of  Falstaff,  under  the  lead  of  the  election  superintendents 
at  the  polls  in  our  large  cities  ! 

The  platforms  of  parties  on  these  subjects  after  the  war  are  well  known. 
It  is  enough  to  say,  that  after  the  disaster  which  the  Democrats  suffered  in 
1868,  by  the  failure  to  place  in  the  Presidential  chair  that  man  of  unsullied 
purity  and  statesmanship,  Horatio  Seymour  ;  and  after  their  failure  to  bridge 
the  chasm  in  1872,  there  was  more  or  less  of  a  saturnalia  in  our  politics. 
At  last  the  strong  arm  of  the  Democracy  was  lifted.  In  1876  the  popular 
vote  was  given  to  it  by  a  majority  of  250,935.  Preceding  1876,  Colorado 
and  Nebraska  had  become  states  in  the  Union.  Their  votes  were,  owing  to 
the  senatorial  offices,  potential  to  reverse  the  popular  will,  even  if  there  had 
not  occurred  the  financial  crisis  in  1873.  This  crisis  was  followed  by  a 
period  of  extreme  depression  of  values,  which  ran  through  1874,  1875,  and 
1876.  It  called  into  activity  many  nostrums  in  finance  and  much  nonsense 
in  politics.  Return  to  specie  payments  was  more  or  less  delayed,  and  even 


THE  POPULAR  HOPE  OF  1876  — TILDEN.  635 

a  return  to  silver  subsidiary  coinage  found  more  or  less  impediment  growing 
out  of  greenback  or  non-redemptionist  ideas.  Other  questions  came  to  the 
front  in  connection  with  administration,  which  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this 
history  to  record,  although  in  many  of  these  the  writer  took  an  interest. 
Some  had  relation  to  the  life-saving  and  letter-carrier  systems,  the  repression 
of  dangers  at  sea,  the  repeal  of  the  registry  laws  of  vessels,  the  purchase  of 
foreign-built  vessels  and  the  supervision  of  steamships.  Various  contrivances 
came  to  the  front  in  respect  to  our  public  debt,  together  with  legislation  con 
cerning  the  public  lands,  railroads,  and  railroad  grants  and  their  forfeiture. 
In  the  discussion  of  these  questions  the  military  at  the  polls  were  too  often 
forgotten. 

The  people  of  this  country  had  hope,d  by  the  apparent  ascendency  of 
Democrats  to  power  in  1876,  that  men  who,  like  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  in  New 
York,  had,  in  their  various  states,  been  connected  with  the  overthrow  of  fraud 
and  the  vindication  of  honesty  in  the  administration  of  affairs,  would  bring 
the  business  of  the  government  into  the  realm  of  ethical  science ;  and  that 
they  would  regard  office  as  a  trust,  to  be  executed  for  the  common  weal. 
The  public  voice  then  demanded  with  no  uncertain  sound  that  the  executive 
branch  of  the  government  should  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  the  Republican 
party.  The  Democracy  saw  that  Governor  Tilden  had  acted  his  part  nobly 
and  well  as  governor  of  the  State  of  New- York,  hence  they  elected  him 
President  of  the  United  States.  They  were  prepared  to  believe  that  a  new 
dawn  had  arisen  upon  our  democratic-republican  form  of  government ;  but 
how  dark  was  their  disappointment !  The  Republican  party,  which  had  legal 
ized  the  infractions  of  every  wise  law,  stole  another  term  of  power !  It  had 
cured  none  of  the  trouble  in  the  South.  It  had  not  given  a  staff  to  busi 
ness  decrepitude.  It  had  left  the  states  as  the  prey  of  swindlers  and  usurpers. 
It  had  made  itself  the  supple  tool  of  all  reckless  enterprises.  It  was  harsh 
and  prescriptive.  It  used  its  power  so  odiously  that  the  centennial  year  of 
1876  thundered  its  denunciation,  but  after  all,  the  end  of  that  party  was  still 
afar  off,  because  Democracy  failed  of  arousal  to  a  sense  of  the  great  wrong 
which  was  committed  by  the  electoral  count  of  the  following  year,  which  will 
be  discussed  in  the  next  two  chapters. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI. 


THE  FAMOUS  ELECTORAL  COMMISSION  OF  x876-»77. 

THE  FORTY-FOURTH  CONGRESS  ASSEMBLES  —  THE  GATHERING  STORM  — DI 
VISION  OF  PARTIES— OPINIONS  ON  THE  MODE  OF  COUNTING  THE  ELECTORAL 
VOTE-PERPLEXITY  OF  THE  PROBLEMS-COMMITTEES  RAISED  UNDER  KNOTT'S 
RESOLUTION  — HOW  THEY  WERE  CONSTITUTED  — THE  SECRETS  OF  THE  COM 
MITTEES  NOW  FIRST  DIVULGED  —  THEIR  DEBATES  AND  THE  RESULTS  — 
SEPARATE  AND  JOINT  ACTION  — CHANCES  BY  DRAWING  LOTS  — THE  SUPREME 
JUSTICES  CALLED  IN  — THE  SHREWD  DEVICES  OF  THE  REPUBLICANS— HOW 
THE  SECRETS  WERE  KEPT  — VARIOUS  DRAFTS  OF  BILLS  — RUMORS  OF  WAR 
—  PREPARATIONS  FOR  THE  USE  OF  FEDERAL  TROOPS  -  FINAL  REPORT  TO 
CONGRESS  AFTER  THE  SECRET  DISCUSSIONS. 

IN  the  history  of  elective  governments  no  such  strain  was  ever  put  upon 
human  nature  as  that  which  tried  the  patience,  forbearance,  and  patriot 
ism  of  the  people  of  this  country  during  the  proceedings  for  the  count 
ing  of  the  Presidential  vote  in  I8J6-JJ.      A  case  like  that  one  could 
never  occur  again  without  sanguinary  results.     How  the  will  of  the  people 
was  then  defeated  by  malevolence,  greed,  fraud,  and  the  breach  of  every 
legal  bond,  the  sequel  will  show. 

Clouds  thick  and  threatening  obscured  the  horizon  when  the  Forty-fourth 
Congress  met  at  its  closing  session,  in  December,  1876.  There  was  an  evi 
dent  determination  on  the  part  of  the  Republican  leaders  not  to  surrender 
the  reins  of  power.  There  was  as  resolute  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the 
Democracy  to  gather,  at  all  hazards,  the  fruits  of  the  victory  which  they 
believed  they  had  fairly  won.  There  seemed  to  be  no  alternative  but  civil 
war.  The  situation  was  indeed  grave.  The  Congress  was  divided  politi 
cally  into  hostile  camps.  The  Senate  was  Republican,  the  House  Demo 
cratic.  The  all-absorbing,  war-threatening  questions  were  :  Had  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  Senate,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  the  right  to  count  the  electoral 
votes?  Did  the  Constitution  invest  him  with  discretionary  power  to  decide 
what  were  and  what  were  not  the  electoral  votes  of  a  state  ?  Must  both 


THE  COMMITTEES  ON  THE  ELECTORAL  COUNT.  637 

houses  of  Congress  acquiesce  in  counting  the  votes  of  a  state  before  they 
could  be  counted  ?  Or  would  the  objection  of  either  house  be  fatal  to  any 
electoral  returns  ?  These  questions  perplexed  the  people  at  large  as  well  as 
Congress.  Peace,  unless  one  or  the  other  party  surrendered  its  claim  of 
victory,  seemed  out  of  the  question.  No  middle  ground  appeared  possible. 
The  horrors  of  another  civil  war  loomed  up  before  the  affrighted  vision. 
In  the  war  for  the  Union  it  was  section  arrayed  against  section  ;  but  in  this 
which  seemed  to  be  now  threatening  it  would  be  neighbor  against  neighbor, 
father  against  son,  brother  against  brother. 

On  the  third  day  of  that  session  of  Congress  the  electoral  colleges  met  in 
the  several  states.  As  had  been  anticipated,  double  sets  of  returns  were 
prepared  and  forwarded  from  South  Carolina,  Florida,  and  Louisiana,  and 
two  claimants  appeared  for  one  office  of  elector  in  far-off  Oregon.  Peti 
tions  poured  into  Congress  from  commercial  organizations  and  good 
citizens  of  all  parties  and  all  sections,  anxiously  praying  for  a  peaceful  settle 
ment  of  the  Presidential  question.  In  the  wisdom  and  the  patriotism  of  that 
body  was  now  the  only  reliance  for  averting  bloodshed.  A  few  days  after 
the  meeting  of  the  electoral  colleges,  December  i4th,  Mr.  Proctor  Knott, 
of  Kentucky,  then  a  member  of  the  House,  and  now  the  governor  of  that 
state,  known  to  fame  as  the  immortalizer  of  "  Duluth,"  initiated  a  response 
to  the  urgent  demands  of  the  country.  He  proposed  a  committee  of  five 
members  whose  duty  it  should  be,  acting  in  conjunction  with  a  similar  com 
mittee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  to  consider  the  whole  question  of  the  dis 
puted  votes,  and  to  recommend  to  Congress  a  course  to  be  followed.  The 
resolution  was  adopted  almost  with  unanimity.  On  the  22d  of  December, 
"  Forefather's  Day,"  the  Speaker,  Mr.  Randall,  of  Pennsylvania,  announced 
the  select  committee  which  the  resolution  called  for  A  like  committee  had 
already  been  named  in  the  Senate.  Messrs.  Edmunds  of  Vermont,  Morton  of 
Indiana,  Conkling  of  New- York,  Frelinghuysen  of  New  Jersey,  Republi 
cans  ;  and  Thurman  of  Ohio,  Bayard  of  Delaware,  and  Ransom  of  North 
Carolina,  Democrats,  composed  the  Senate  committee.  Messrs.  Payne  of 
Ohio,  Hewitt  of  New- York,  Hunton  of  Virginia,  Springer  of  Illinois,  Demo 
crats  ;  and  McCrary  of  Iowa,  Hoar  of  Massachusetts,  and  Willard  of  Michi 
gan,  Republicans,  composed  the  House  committee. 

A  fair  proportion  of  the  wisdom  and  patriotism  of  Congress  was  believed 
to  be  embodied  in  these  selections.  Mr.  Payne  made  arrangements  for  a 
preliminary  examination  of  the  precedents  relating  to  the  counting  of  elec 
toral  votes.  Nothing  else  was  done  until  after  the  holiday  recess.  The 
country  began  to  breathe  more  easily.  Congress  had  awakened  to  the  situa 
tion.  Each  house  seemed  to  be  doing  its  best  to  avert  the  threatened  anarchy. 
Still,  there  was  sufficient  uneasiness  to  paralyze  trade  and  commerce.  The 
clouds  were  not  all  dispersed.  After  the  holiday  recess  was  over,  Mr.  Payne 
and  his  coadjutors  of  the  House  committee  settled  down  to  business  promptly. 


638  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

The  Senate  committee  under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Edmunds,  did  the  same.  Almost 
at  the  outset  it  became  evident  that  the  two  parties,  as  represented  in  the  com 
mittees,  would  not  agree  on  the  question  regarding  the  extent  or  limitations  of 
the  powers  and  duties  of  the  President  of  the  Senate  in  the  matter  of  counting 
the  disputed  electoral  votes.  Several  plans  of  accommodation  were  proposed, 
but  all  of  them  led  straight  to  one  of  two  results,  namely,  either  the  seating 
of  Tilden,  or  the  seating  of  Hayes.  They  were,  therefore,  sure  to  encounter 
the  opposition  of  either  the  Republican  Senate  or  the  Democratic  House. 
In  this  situation  there  was  no  prospect  of  Congress  reaching  a  point  where 
it  would  perform  its  constitutional  duty  of  declaring  who  had  been  elected 
President.  Could  Congress  constitutionally  abrogate  or  delegate  that  high 
prerogative?  The  committees  had  serious  doubts  on  this  question,  but 
some  conclusion  must  be  reached.  Nine  propositions  were  submitted  at  the 
first  meeting  of  the  House  committee  after  New  Year's  Day.  Among  these 
the  fifth  contained  the  germ  of  thought  out  of  which  grew  the  famous  Elec 
toral  Commission.  This  proposition  suggested  the  enactment  of  a  law  creat 
ing  an  independent  tribunal  which  should  be  authorized  to  count  the  vote, 
and  to  determine  any  specific  questions  of  law  or  of  fact  which  might  be  in 
volved  in  such  proceeding. 

Curiously  enough,  each  committee,  acting  separately,  without  consulta 
tion  or  even  knowledge  of  what  the  other  was  doing  or  contemplating,  took 
up  almost  simultaneously  the  same  idea  of  an  independent  tribunal.  When 
the  House  committee  met  on  Jan.  10,  1877,  Mr.  McCrary,  of  Iowa,  a 
lawyer  of  excellent  ability,  now  a  United  States  judge,  submitted  the  draft  of 
a  bill  for  an  independent  tribunal.  This  tribunal  was  to  consist  of  members 
of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court, —  the  Chief  Justice  and  a  number  (in 
blank)  of  associate  justices,  in  the  order  of  their  seniority  of  commission. 
The  Chief  Justice  was  promptly  ruled  out.  An  objection  was  raised  by  a 
Democratic  member  of  the  committee  that  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Waite  had 
been  heard,  the  previous  summer,  to  express  himself  in  terms  of  personal 
hostility  to  Mr.  Tilden,  such  as  better  befitted  a  partisan  than  a  judge. 
Whether  this  was  so  or  not,  the  doubt  as  to  his  bias  had  its  effect.  It  should 
be  here  said,  in  justice  to  Mr.  Waite,  that  at  a  subsequent  stage  of  the  dis 
cussion  a  personal  friend  of  his,  speaking  for  him  to  the  committee,  stated  that 
it  was  the  Chief  Justice's  earnest  desire  that  his  name  should  not  be  con 
sidered  in  connection  with  the  proposed  commission  The  plan  finally 
agreed  upon  by  the  House  committee  favored  an  independent  tribunal,  to 
consist  of  the  five  senior  associate  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court.  These 
were  Justices  Clifford,  Swayne,  Davis,  Miller,  and  Field.  Two  of  these 
were  known  as  Democrats,  two  as  Republicans,  and  Mr.  Justice  Davis' 
political  affinity  was  in  doubt.  Thus  the  political  balance  so  much  sought 
for  seemed  to  be  happily  attained. 

Mr.  McCrary's  bill  made  the  decision  of  the  proposed  tribunal  binding, 


SECRET  COMMITTEE  DELIBERATIONS.  639 

unless  both  houses  of  Congress  should  vote  to  overrule  it.  His  Democratic 
associates  insisted  on  an  amendment  to  the  effect  that  the  decision  of  the  tri 
bunal  should  have  no  binding  quality  or  effect  unless  concurred  in  by  both 
houses.  To  this  the  Republicans  would  not  consent,  and  the  change  was 
made  without  their  help.  The  House  bill,  besides  providing  for  an  evenly 
balanced  tribunal,  contemplated  a  hearing  of  the  questions  in  dispute  on 
their  merits.  To  these  five  eminent  judges  were  to  be  referred  "  the  certifi 
cates  objected  to,  together  with  the  objections,  and  all  papers  and  evidence  in 
the  possession  of  the  President  of  the  Senate,  or  of  either  of  the  houses  of 
Congress  relating  thereto."  Power  was  to  be  granted  them  "to  send  for 
persons  and  papers,  and  to  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses  ;  also  to  cause 
testimony  to  be  taken  before  one  or  more  commissioners,  to  be  appointed  by 
them  for  that  purpose."  This  was  before  the  aliunde  device  for  cheating  the 
people  had  been  concocted.  The  proposed  inquisitorial  power  would  enable 
the  tribunal  of  learned  justices  to  strip  the  mask  from  fraud,  and  at  the  same 
time  would  not  bind  them  to  admit  that  a  lie  became  truth  by  being  so 
labeled  under  sealing  wax  and  red  tape. 

Thus  far  the  two  committees  were  in  ignorance  of  each  other's  move 
ments.  Each  preserved  its  own  secrets  inviolably.  Mr.  Payne,  of  Ohio, 
the  chairman  of  the  House  committee,  was  then  a  member  of  the  Com 
mittee  upon  Banking  and  Currency,  of  which  the  writer  was  chairman. 
They  met  every  day,  in  their  historic  room  —  the  Speaker's  room  when 
the  House  sat  in  the  old  hall ;  the  room  in  which  John  Quincy  Adams  saw 
the  "last  of  earth."  Mr.  Payne  and  the  writer  held  close  relations.  These 
began  in  1855,  when  Mr.  Payne  was  a  candidate  for  governor  against  Mr. 
Chase.  But  this  and  other  olden  intimacies  growing  out  of  the  Douglas 
and  anti-Lecompton  contest  had  not  magic  sufficient  to  open  the  cave 
where  the  mysterious  ingots  of  political  opulence  were  hidden  in  1877. 
The  clerk  of  the  Banking  and  Currency  committee  was  Mr.  Milton  H. 
Northrup,  of  Syracuse,  New-York.  He  had  been  appointed  by  the  writer. 
His  trustworthiness  led  Mr.  Payne  to  appoint  him  as  clerk  to  the  House 
committee  upon  the  electoral  count.  He  was,  and  still  is,  the  custodian  of 
the  archives  of  that  remarkable  star  chamber.  Whether  he  has  since 
divulged  them  to  any  one,  the  authenticity  of  this  relation  should  divulge  to 
the  logical  mind.  But  from  neither  the  chairman,  Mr.  Payne,  nor  his  clerk, 
Mr.  Northrup,  could  the  writer,  at  that  time,  by  any  torture  of  inquisition, 
obtain  the  least  hint  of  the  proceedings.  The  secrets  of  that  prison-house 
were  so  well  kept  that  not  even  the  acutely-scenting  press  correspondents  had 
been  able  to  learn  that  such  a  bill  was  being  considered.  The  first  intima 
tion  the  writer,  or  any  one  outside  the  committee,  had  of  its  propositions, 
was  from  the  bill  itself,  after  it  had  received  its  consummation  of  bud  and 
bloom  and  been  printed  by  order  of  the  committees. 

In  response  to  an  invitation  from  the  chairman  of  the  Senate  commit- 


640  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

tee,  Mr.  Edmunds,  the  House  committee  on  the  i2th  of  January  journeyed 
over  to  the  Senate  wing  of  the  Capitol.  They  were  ushered  into  the  Ju 
diciary  Committee  room,  and  into  the  presence  of  the  ambitious  statesmen 
who  then  sat  around  its  long  table.  A  comparison  of  notes  followed.  Each 
committee  was  found  equipped  with  a  plan.  Each  plan  was  a  cure  for 
the  disorder  under  which  the  country  staggered.  The  Senate  plan  was 
decidedly  complex.  While  the  House  was  content  to  submit  the  dispute  to 
the  five  senior  associate  justices,  the  Senate  wanted  a  mixed  tribunal  whose 
elements  should  come  from  the  legislative  as  well  as  the  judicial  branch  of 
the  government.  The  Senate  committee  had  arrived  at  a  "  third  draft"  of  a 
bill.  They  had  made  revision  after  revision.  They  had  at  last  agreed  to  sub 
mit  a  plan  to  their  brethren  of  the  lower  house.  It  was  this  :  A  commission 
to  consist  of  thirteen  members.  Nine  to  be  taken  from  Congress  and  four 
from  the  Supreme  Court.  Each  house  of  Congress  to  name  five  of  its  mem 
bers  to  sit  upon  the  Commission.  One  of  the  ten  so  designated  was  to  be 
eliminated  by  lot.  Under  this  plan  the  Senate  would  appoint  five  of  its  Re 
publican  members  and  the  House  of  Representatives  five  of  its  Democratic 
members,  and  as  the  four  Supreme  Court  judges  were  expected  to  be  evenly 
balanced,  the  only  way  to  break  the  inevitable  deadlock  in  the  Commission 
was  to  "  draw  cuts."  The  grave  and  reverend  Senators  who  proposed  this 
Biblical  and  happy-go-lucky  mode  of  settling  a  Presidential  succession  by  the 
intervention  of  Providence  through  the  "  chances,"  were  the  objects  of  occa 
sional  raillery  from  the  members  of  the  other  committee.  This  return  to 
primitive  customs  was  humorously  styled  the  "  dice-box"  principle. 

The  House  committee  readily  accepted  the  Senate  idea  of  a  mixed  Com 
mission.  It  would  give  to  Congress  itself  a  representation  on  the  tribunal  to 
be  created.  But  the  Democrats  of  the  committee  strenuously  insisted  that  if 
there  was  to  be  a  "  lot,"  it  must  apply  to  the  judiciary  rather  than  to  the 
congressional  members  of  the  Commission  —  leaving  the  political  part  of  it 
divided  between  the  two  parties.  After  general  discussion  it  was  gravely  de 
cided  that  the  term  "  commission,"  rather  than  "  tribunal,"  should  be  the  title 
of  this  body.  It  was  also  decided  that  it  should  consist  of  fifteen  members — 
an  equal  number  from  each  of  the  three  bodies  represented.  The  Senate 
committee  promptly  acquiesced.  Thenceforward  the  discussion  related  not 
so  much  to  the  plan  as  to  the  personnel  of  the  Commission.  It  was  as 
sumed  that,  so  far  as  the  legislative  part  was  concerned,  the  Commission 
would  be  a  "  stand  off"  between  the  parties.  How  to  divide  five  judges 
equally  between  the  two  parties  without  doing  violence  to  any  one  of  those 
venerable  wearers  of  the  ermine,  required  such  a  nice  mathematical  calcula 
tion  as  to  absorb  the  entire  time  of  the  great  minds  there  assembled  for 
several  days.  The  Democrats  claimed  but  two  members  of  the  Court,  Jus 
tices  Clifford  and  Field ;  the  Republicans  had,  perhaps,  all  the  rest.  Still, 
Mr.  Justice  Davis  was  of  uncertain  political  preferences.  Was  it  unreason- 


THE  COMMITTEES  IN  CONFERENCE.  641 

able  to  hope  that  the  equipoise,  the  gravity  of  this  distinguished  jurist  would 
not  be  disturbed  by  party  predilections  ?  It  was  finally  agreed  that  the  con 
tention  which  was  shaking  the  half  of  our  hemisphere  should  be  in  this 
mode  determined.  It  is  too  late  now  to  gather  up  the  thousand  threads  in 
the  tangled  rumors  of  that  eventful  time.  There  were  rumors  of  assassina 
tion,  rumors  of  wars,  rumors  of  panic  from  commercial  centres,  and  of 
diablerie  from  remote  territories.  Democrats  were  to  march  upon  Washing 
ton  by  the  hundred  thousand.  Federal  troops  were  ordered  to  Washington, 
cartridges  were  being  made,  and  chaos  was  riding  wildly  over  the  body  of 
the  Constitution  under  processes  unknown  to  that  instrument.  By  Saturday 
night  an  agreement  was  substantially  reached.  It  provided  for  taking  six  of 
the  justices,  in  the  order  of  their  seniority,  namely,  Clifford,  Swayne,  Davis, 
Miller,  Field,  and  Strong, — one  of  them  to  be  dropped  out  by  lot.  Senator 
Conkling  eloquently  urged  this  as  perhaps  the  only  practical  solution  of 
the  difficulty.  The  House  Democrats,  except  Mr.  Springer,  reluctantly  as 
sented.  The  advantage,  they  believed,  was  with  their  opponents,  as  it  was 
not  fair  to  class  Judge  Davis  as  a  Democrat.  Mr.  Springer  preferred  to 
think  it  over  until  Monday  morning.  The  joint  session  was  adjourned,  with 
the  Electoral  bill  still  suspended,  after  the  manner  of  Mahomet's  coffin. 

Thus  stood  matters  on  Saturday  night.  When  the  committees  came  to 
gether  the  next  Monday,  a  wonderful  change  had  come  over  the  spirit  of  their 
dreams.  In  spite  of  the  sternest  injunction  of  secrecy,  the  plan  which  came  so 
near  being  adopted  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  week  had  transpired.  It  had 
trickled  into  the  columns  of  the  New-York  Times.  Members  of  Congress 
were  not  long  in  getting  hold  of  it.  They  were  not  long  in  heaping  ridicule 
upon  the  proposition.  Lottery  might  be  in  certain  cases  admissible,  but  not 
in  lieu  of  constitutional  methods.  In  the  joint  meeting  of  the  two  commit 
tees,  Mr.  Payne  announced  to  his  associates,  that  since  their  plan  had  be 
come  known,  the  opposition  to  that  feature  which  provided  for  selecting  six 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  dropping  one  by  lot  had  developed  to  a 
degree  which  satisfied  him  that  it  could  nevfcr  receive  the  indorsement  of 
the  House.  The  House  committee,  on  reflection,  decided  to  withdraw 
their  assent  to  that  proposition.  That  committee  once  more  submitted  their 
original  proposition  to  take  the  five  senior  justices  outright.  This  was 
the  fairest  to  all  parties.  Two  of  these,  Justices  Clifford  and  Field,  be 
ing  understood  to  be  in  Democratic  sympathy,  two,  Justices  Swayne  and 
Miller,  in  Republican  sympathy,  and  the  fifth,  Justice  Davis,  leaning  no 
more  to  one  side  than  the  other.  This  plan,  Mr.  Payne  urged,  would  in 
sure  the  non-partisan  character  of  the  Commission.  It  would  give  the  odd 
number  without  a  resort  to  the  "  lot"  system,  to  which  many  seriously  ob 
jected.  This  brought  a  retort  from  Mr.  Edmunds.  This  remarkable  man, 
who  bears  so  close  a  resemblance  to  a  sainted  character,  is  known  as  the  St. 
Jerome  of  the  Senate.  He  is  a  man  whose  wit  rivals  his  legal  acumen. 


642  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

He  said  that  Judge  Davis  was  one  of  those  "  Independents  who  stood  al 
ways  ready  to  accept  Democratic  nominations."  He  had  noticed  that  "  such 
men  are  generally  the  most  extreme  in  their  partisanship,"  and,  he  added, 
that  he  "  would  rather  entrust  a  decision  to  an  out  and  out  Democrat  than  to 
a  so-called  Independent."  Having  fired  this  Scythian  arrow,  the  elegant 
and  sainted  Senator  unstrung  his  bow.  Mr.  McCrary  said  that  the  Repub 
licans  of  the  House  committee  were  quite  satisfied  with  the  senatorial 
Providential  plan ;  but  they  would  like  fully  as  well  to  take  the  two  senior 
justices  only,  and  drop  one  of  them  by  lot.  "Certainly,"  added  he,  u  no 
one  would  say  that  Clifford  and  Swayne  are  not  absolutely  fair." 

During  this  remarkable  confabulation,  where  is  the  great  War  Governor  — 
Senator  Morton?  Glum  and  saturnine,  he  sits  far  and  aloof  from  these 
superficialities.  His  every  feature  suggests  clouds  charged  with  thunderbolts. 
His  very  presence,  as  he  frowns  upon  the  gathered  statesmen  from  behind 
his  crutches,  is  a  vengeful  protest.  He  seems  to  be  gathering  electric  cur 
rents  for  a  wrathful  flash  of  luridness  and  danger.  Thus  far  he  has  eyed 
askance  each  talker,  but  has  seldom  spoken.  He  now  ventures  to  ad 
dress  his  associates.  He  declares  that  he  entertains  great  doubt  about  the 
power  of  calling  in  any  outside  tribunal  to  settle  this  momentous  question. 
If,  however,  there  is  such  a  power,  "why  not,"  he  exclaims,  "call  in  the 
whole  Supreme  Court?  Is  it  not  more  simple?  It  will  not  have  the  ap 
pearance  of  being  fixed.  All  parties  will  be  satisfied.  Their  decision 
would  be  acquiesced  in  by  all."  This  was  in  conformity  with  what  the 
Senator  said  subsequently,  when  the  bill  was  before  the  Senate.  The  Indi 
ana  Senator,  with  characteristic  sledge-hammer  force  then  denounced  the 
plan  as  a  "  contrivance."  He  held  that  it  was  unknown  to  the  Constitution. 
It  was,  in  short,  a  cowardly  evasion  of  duties  by  Congress.  Mr  Freling- 
huysen  took  up  the  point  in  the  joint  committee  and  retorted  that  to  drop 
one  judge  by  lot  could  not  possibly  be  susceptible  to  the  charge  of  "being 
fixed."  The  discussion  then  reverted  to  the  party  leanings  of  Justice 
Davis.  "Judge  Davis,"  safd  Mr.  Springer,  "is  just  about  as  much  of  a 
Democrat  as  Horace  Greeley  was  in  1871.  He  is  not  now,  and  never  was,  a 
Democrat.  His  most  intimate  friends,  among  whom  I  may  count  myself, 
do  not  know  to-day  whether  he  favored  Tilden  or  Hayes.  He  did  not  vote 
at  all.  They  only  know  that  he  is  absolutely  honest  and  fair." 

The  chances  of  agreement,  so  star-like  on  Saturday,  had  become  nebulous 
on  the  following  Monday.  Unusual  apprehension  seized  the  committeemen. 
They  feared  that  even  if  an  agreement  in  committee  were  possible,  its  ratifica 
tion  by  Congress  was  impossible.  "Those  fellows,"  said  Mr.  Edmunds, 
"  who  believe  it  foreordained  that  Hayes  is  to  be  President,  think  the  Consti 
tution,  as  it  is,  sufficient  for  their  purpose.  They  will  oppose  any  legislation 
whatever  on  the  subject."  Mr.  Bayard,  more  sanguine,  perhaps,  than  some 
of  the  others,  said  :  "  If  we  —  seven  men  of  both  houses  —  could  agree,  would 


EFFORTS  AT  AGREEMENT.  643 

there  not  be  a  weight  in  such  an  agreement  sufficient  to  carry  it  through  ? 
Would  it  not  be  a  most  noble  example  of  abnegation  of  partisanship  ?  I  am 
one  who  believes  that  whatever  measure  is  recommended  by  this  committee  will 
be  adopted."  Mr.  Hewitt,  who,  as  chairman  of  the  Democratic  National 
Committee,  was  sometimes  credited  with  representing  the  views  as  well  as  the 
interests  of  Mr.  Tilden,  was  pressed  by  Mr.  Conkling  to  suggest  a  way  out  of 
the  entanglement.  "  My  colleague,"  replied  Mr.  Hewitt,  "  is  aware  of  the 
disadvantages  I  labor  under  in  making  suggestions.  He  has  doubtless  ob 
served  that  I  have  had  little  to  say  in  this  discussion.  Owing  to  my  peculiar 
relations,  I  am  unjustly  supposed  to  speak  for  another.  But  my  personal 
views  are  not  always  or  necessarily  in  harmony  with  those  of  the  person  for 
whom  I  am  supposed  to  speak."  He  stated  his  conviction,  however,  that  the 
bill  with  the  "  lot "  feature  could  never  pass.  Whereupon  Mr.  Conkling  said 
it  was  a  question  in  his  mind  whether  it  would  not  be  better  for  each  commit 
tee  to  report  its  own  plan  to  its  own  house,  and  there  discuss  it,  "getting 
together  finally  if  we  can."  Throughout  the  committee  sessions,  Mr. 
Conkling  manifested  an  exceeding  anxiety  to  arrive  at  some  satisfactory  settle 
ment.  His  opponent  is  Senator  Morton.  There  he  sits  in  his  sullen  and 
sublime  disquietude.  He  is,  in  this  mood,  the  Achilles  of  the  contest.  When 
the  committees  separate  that  evening,  they  walk  out  of  the  Senate  Judiciary 
room  with  anything  but  a  hopeful  mien. 

When  the  committees  met  the  next  day,  Mr.  Payne  sought  refuge  once 
more  in  the  bill  agreed  to  by  his  Democratic  confreres  of  the  House  com 
mittee, —  naming  the  five  senior  associate  justices,  Clifford,  Swayne,  Davis, 
Field,  and  Miller.  He  again  urged  its  absolute  equipoise «—  Justice  Davis, 
as  usual,  being  relied  on  to  divide  himself  equally  between  the  two  parties. 
For  the  sake  of  reaching  an  agreement,  Mr.  Payne  announced  that  the 
House  committee,  contrary  to  their  own  judgment,  had  assented  to  the 
proposition  that  the  decision  of  the  tribunal  should  be  final  unless  overruled 
by  both  houses.  Mr.  Morton  interposed  again  in  favor  of  taking  the  whole 
Supreme  Court  instead  of  any  part  of  it,  "and  tjius  avoid  invidious  dis 
tinctions."  Mr.  Hewitt  said  that  his  idea  was,  to  take  five  from  each  body, 
namely,  five  from  the  Senate,  five  from  the  House,  and  five  from  the  Judiciary. 
"  In  selecting  the  latter,"  said  he,  "  there  is  an  obvious  propriety  in  selecting 
those  longest  on  the  bench,  as  farthest  removed  from  the  passions  of  the 
party  politics  of  the  day.  Those  recently  appointed  on  the  bench  are  too 
fresh  from  the  domain  of  politics  to  have  gotten  over  a  natural  bias  that 
they  took  with  them." 

Republican  distrust  of  Justice  Davis  —  the  expected  fifth  wheel  of  the 
coach  —  and  Democratic  insistence  that  he  should  not  be  charged  up  against 
the  Democrats,  were  the  leading  features  of  these  discussions,  of  -which  the 
Constitution  should  by  its  own  vigor  have  made  an  end.  ' '  The  proposition  of 
the  House  committee,"  declared  Senator  Frelinghuysen,  "  is  really  to  make 


644  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

a  Commission  of  eight  Democrats  and  seven  Republicans.  Judge  Davis  has 
twice  aspired  to  the  nomination  by  the  Democrats  for  the  Presidency.  Per 
haps  he  has  now  aspirations  for  the  future.  His  vote  might  turn  the  gov 
ernment  over  to  the  Democrats  or  retain  the  Republicans  in  power.  It  is 
not  a  fair  proposition."  Mr.  Hewitt,  who  had  thoroughly  investigated  the 
judge,  said  that  the  best  information  he  could  get  was  that  he  was  "  neutral." 
At  this  a  sardonic  smile  plays  over  the  features  of  Senator  Edmunds.  He 
flashes  somewhat  recklessly  his  daggers  of  speech,  keen-edged,  like  those  of 
the  Corsican  vendetta,  on  which  are  burned  in  letters  of  bluish  beauty  — 
A  la  mortel  "  The  best  evidence  of  his  neutrality,"  said  the  Senator,  "  is 
the  same  as  that  of  Greeley  and  Chase.  He  is  fishing  after  Democratic 
nominations ! "  Senator  Thurman  —  the  grand  old  man  of  Ohio,  and  the 
jidus  Achates  of  Judge  Edmunds — demurely  suggests  an  even  number  of 
judges.  "I  do  not  believe,"  he  said,  "that  they  would  range  themselves  on 
party  lines.  No  doubt  they  would  decide  as  they  believed  right."  Here 
Mr.  Hoar  and  Mr.  Willard  strike  off  on  a  line  of  their  own.  They  are  full 
of  inspiration  for  "an  evenly  divided  Commission,  which,  in  case  of  inabil 
ity  to  decide,  should  be  empowered  to  call  in  an  outsider,  some  eminent 
American  not  in  public  life,  as  umpire."  A  waggish  member  suggests 
Lord  Dufferin  as  equal  to  the  task !  —  It  must  be  confessed  that  this  ac 
complished  civilian  was  not  unfitted  to  decide  a  controversy  which  had 
overleaped  the  barriers  of  the  Constitution  ;  for  had  he  not  been  the  success 
ful  commissioner  to  the  Lebanon,  to  intervene  in  behalf  of  the  Christians 
who  were  being  butchered  by  the  cruel  Druses  of  the  mountains  ?  Had  he 
not  visited  "  high  latitudes"  and  drawn  inspiration  from  the  wisdom  of  the 
thousand  years  of  Iceland's  republican  simplicity?  Had  he  not,  by  per 
suasive  good  sense,  reconciled  Canada  with  the  Crown  ?  It  was  hardly  wag 
gery  in  such  a  dilemma  to  suggest  so  just  and  fair  an  arbitrator.  There 
were  more  consultations ;  but  still  no  agreement.  The  Republicans  still 
insisted  on  drawing  the  line  at  Justice  Davis.  The  Senate  committee  came 
forward  with  a  new  proposition.  It  was,  to  take  the  four  senior  justices  — 
Clifford,  Davis,  Swayne,  and  Miller  —  and  these  to  select  a  fifth.  This,  it 
seems,  had  the  acquiescence  of  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Senate  com 
mittee.  It  was  not  approved,  however,  by  the  House  Democrats.  "  I  con 
fess,"  said  Chairman  Payne,  u  that  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  this 
last  proposition  is  based  on  any  assumption  that  the  Commission  should  be 
equal.  Judge  Davis  is  not  a  Democrat.  You  ask  us  to  take  as  a  Democrat 
one  who  is  not  more  than  half  a  Democrat,  against  two  absolute  Republi 
cans.  I  can  see  no  equality  in  such  a  proposition." 

Senator  Bayard,  whose  faith  in  the  Supreme  Court  was  shortly  to  be 
rudely  shaken,  was  sometimes  disposed  to  criticize  the  Democrats  of  the 
lower  House  because  they  so  stubbornly  contended  for  absolute  equipoise  in 
the  composition  of  the  Commission.  To  them  he  talked  across  the  commit- 


SELECTION  OF  SUPREME  COURT  JUSTICES.  645 

tee  table  with  that  impressive  earnestness  which  is  his  wont.  No  one  felt 
the  gravity  of  the  crisis  and  the  necessity  for  burying  party  in  patriotism 
more  than  did  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Delaware.  Himself  without 
fear  and  without  reproach,  he  hesitated  to  attribute  a  lower  standard  to 
others.  In  pressing  the  acceptance  of  the  Senate  committee's  latest  plan,  he 
said  :  "  To  me  it  is  rather  saddening  that  the  agreement  should  hinge  on  the 
qziantum  of  bias  in  Judge  Davis.  I  know  Judge  Davis  only  slightly  —  know 
him  only  as  a  lawyer  of  limited  practice  knows  judges  who  sit  on  the  bench 
before  him.  I  believe  he  is  more  of  a  Democrat  than  a  Republican  on 
existing  issues.  I  cannot  but  believe  that  in  this  hour  of  great  danger  to  the 
institutions  of  this  country,  there  will  be  evolved  a  feeling  above  party,  a 
feeling  that  shall  regard  the  country  as  paramount  to  all  merely  partisan 
ends  or  considerations.  Party  view  is  not  the  only  view  to  take,  nor  the 
strongest.  For  that  reason  I  have  voted  for  this  proposition,  though  not 
fully  meeting  my  views.  .  .  .  All  this  weighing  and  balancing  may 
turn  out  to  be  perfectly  useless.  We  may  find  the  partisan  feeling  in  the 
judges  the  very  smallest.  The  mere  fact  of  their  selection  under  the  circum 
stances,  would  of  itself  tend  to  make  them  non-partisan."  The  same  spirit 
of  confidence  shone  out  in  Mr.  Bayard's  remarks  made  in  another  day's  dis 
cussion.  "  In  my  judgment,"  said  he,  "that  estimate  which  is  founded  011 
the  political  prejudice  of  any  one  of  these  judges  will  be  found  wanting.  I 
believe  it  would  be  most  unwise  in  me  to  base  my  judgment  of  this  measure 
on  any  supposition  that  the  small  bias  of  a  judge  should  turn  the  scale  of  his 
decision."  He  would  not  stand  on  the  shadow  of  a  hair.  On  the  broad 
question  of  dealing  with  a  matter  like  this,  he  would  not  believe  that  parti 
sanship  could  control  the  decision  of  judges.  Many  are  the  disillusions  of 
human  life  ;  and  it  is  safe  to  say  one  of  them  has  often  haunted  the  soul  of 
the  single-minded  Senator. 

Another  fruitless  session  closed,  and  the  two  committees  separated  for 
consultation.  They  met  once  more.  Next  morning  they  are  seated  around 
the  long  table  in  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  room.  They  are  informed 
by  Mr.  Chairman  Payne  that  a  majority  of  the  House  committee  had  been 
unable  to  assent  to  the  Senate  plan  to  charge  Judge  Davis  against  the  Demo 
crats  in  the  choice  of  judges  to  sit  on  the  Commission.  Mr.  Payne  reminded 
them  that  the  Judge,  only  the  day  before,  was  the  candidate  against  the 
Democrats  for  Senator  in  Illinois.  He  called  upon  Mr.  Hewitt  to  state  a 
new  proposition.  "  At  first  blush,"  he  added,  "it  has  the  unanimous  ap 
proval  of  the  House  committee."  This  proposition  originates  with  Mr. 
Hewitt.  It  proves  to  be  as  follows :  The  two  senior  associate  justices, 
Clifford,  a  Democrat,  and  Swayne,  a  Republican,  are  each  to  select  another 
justice.  Then  these  four  are  to  name  the  fifth.  In  the  course  of  the  discus 
sion  that  followed,  Mr.  Hoar  said  that  they  had  all  proceeded  on  the  theory 
that  there  is  a  political  bias  in  the  Supreme  Court.  But  he  asked  if  any  one 


646  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

supposed  that  the  judges  would  be  willing  to  go  down  to  history  as  dividing, 
on  a  question  of  such  transcendent  importance,  on  a  party  line?  Would  not 
their  bias  against  thus  appearing  in  history  be  infinitely  greater  than  any 
mere  party  bias  which  they  might  happen  to  feel  ?  This  question  was  suffi 
ciently  answered  a  few  days  later,  in  the  "  8  to  7"  Commission. 

The  Hewitt  proposition  was  summarily  rejected  by  the  Senate  committee. 
Chairman  Edmunds  pungently  characterized  it  as  "built  on  the  cob-house 
principle."  That  truculent  Senator  insisted  that  the  taking  of  six  judges  and 
dropping  one  by  lot  was  the  true  principle.  u  This,"  interjected  the  icono 
clastic  Springer,  "flavors  of  the  dice-box  principle."  Senator  Edmunds 
expressed  his  willingness  to  accept  the  u  lot"  plan  u  and  let  the  world  howl 
as  much  as  it  chose."  But  his  committee  had  decided  to  submit  a  counter- 
proposition.  It  was,  to  take  the  associate  justices  from  the  First,  Third, 
Eighth,  and  Ninth  Judicial  Circuits,  and  let  these  four  name  a  fifth  member 
of  the  Supreme  Court  to  sit  upon  the  Commission.  "  This  plan,"  says  the 
Vermont  Senator,  "  has  the  merit  of  being  based  on  geographical  considera 
tions — Justice  Clifford  representing  New  England,  Justice  Strong  the  Mid 
dle  States,  Justice  Miller  the  Northwest,  and  Justice  Field  the  Pacific 
slope." 

At  last  a  scheme,  or,  to  adopt  the  designation  given  to  it  by  Senator 
Morton,  a  "  contrivance,"  was  devised.  It  received  the  sanction  of  the  com 
mittees  and  of  Congress.  Geography  came  to  the  aid  of  political  science. 
It  enabled  the  authors  of  the  Electoral  bill  to  jump  over  judicial  seniority 
as  nimbly  as  a  deer  would  clear  a  hedge.  They  gracefully  avoided  the  ap 
pearance  of  making  invidious  distinctions,  which  the  selection  of  the  judges 
by  name  would  involve.  The  Republicans  were  enamored  of  the  device.  It 
was  a  new  Mercator's  projection,  on  which  to  map  their  course  of  plain  sail 
ing.  It  gave  them  Justice  Strong,  whose  partisanship  was  pronounced,  in 
stead  of  Swayne.  It  was  known  that  the  latter  had  a  personal  regard  for 
Mr.  Tilden,  in  whose  Gramercy  Park  mansion,  it  was  said,  there  was  a  room 
always  at  Judge  Swayne's  service.  These  considerations  made  him  not  alto 
gether  a  safe  reliance  when  questionable  party  work  was  required.  This 
contrivance  suited  the  Democrats,  also.  It  gave  them  what  they  had  all  along 
contended  for,  namely,  two  Democrats,  with  a  contingent  remainder  in  Mr. 
Justice  Davis  as  a  probable  selection  for  the  fifth  judge.  Judge  Swayne  felt 
the  slight  put  upon  him  by  his  own  party.  He  would  have  been  acceptable 
to  the  Democrats.  But  it  was  said  in  committee  that  this  action  was  taken 
in  order  to  avoid  the  implication  of  unfairness,  and  that  it  was  not  the  inten 
tion  to  slight  Justice  Swayne.  He  was  an  Ohio  man.  It  would  be  indeli 
cate  to  select  a  judge  from  either  of  the  states  of  the  Presidential  candidates. 
Such  a  rule  would  exclude  Judge  Hunt,  of  New- York,  as  well  as  Chief  Jus 
tice  Waite  and  Judge  Swayne,  of  Ohio.  Congress  itself  seems  to  have  been 
less  tenacious  of  this  point  of  etiquette,  for  Ohio  was  given  no  less  than 


THE  GEOGRAPHICAL  PLAN.  647 

three  of  the  ten  members  representing  that  body  in  the  Commission,  namely, 
Senator  Thurman  and  Representatives  Payne  and  Garfield.  New- York  had 
no  voice  in  that  tribunal. 

The  "geographical"  plan  needed  little  urging.  "  The  public,"  said 
Mr.  Edmunds,  "  will  recognize  at  once  the  propriety  of  these  selections,  em 
bracing  all  sections  of  the  Union,  and  at  the  same  time  maintaining  the 
desired  political  equipoise  of  the  Commission."  This  was  said  in  the  most 
impartial  tone  of  the  Senator.  His  attitude  was  that  of  one  who  would 
not  bend  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left.  He  was  polar  in  the  frigidity  of  his 
rectitude.  What  could  be  fairer  than  a  geographical  plan  set  off  in  judicial 
ermine,  with  Justice  herself  holding  the  political  scales  in  equipoise  ?  Mr. 
Hewitt  was  favorably  impressed.  "  I  can  see,"  he  said,  "that  this  plan  is 
less  embarrassing  in  that  it  leaves  the  selection  of  the  fifth  judge  between 
the  two  senior  judges,  Swayne  and  Davis."  Judge  McCrary  thought  that 
the  suggestion  of  the  Senate  committee  was  exceedingly  felicitous.  Judge 
Hunton,  the  cautious  and  conservative  Virginian,  was  not  quite  persuaded. 
"  Could  we  believe,"  he  half  soliloquized,  "  that  this  tribunal  would  be  abso 
lutely  devoid  of  partisanship,  we  would  have  no  hesitation ;  nor  would  we 
care  who  were  taken.  But  we  have  to  act  on  the  other  theory."  The  House 
•committee  retired  for  consultation.  With  what  result  afterwards  appeared. 
Its  members  once  more  joined  the  Senate  committee  within  the  closed  doors 
of  the  Judiciary  Committee  room  at  four  o'clock  that  afternoon.  Mr.  Payne 
announced  that  with  a  single  exception,  his  associates  had  unanimously 
agreed  to  accept  the  geographical  proposition.  That  exception  was  Judge 
Hunton.  He  wished  to  think  of  the  matter  over  night,  before  pronouncing 
his  judgment.  But  the  child  was  born.  The  long  agony  of  the  committee 
was  ended.  It  only  remained  to  glance  at  the  bill  by  sections.  Its  phrase 
ology  was  then  scrutinized.  In  this  task  Mr.  Conkling  was  especially  happy. 
Mr.  Morton  sat  moodily  aside.  He  scowled  his  protest.  He  was  silent  and 
gloomy,  like  the  effigy  of  the  great  Napoleon  when  contemplating  the  defeat 
of  his  veterans  at  Waterloo.  He  despised  state  lines.  They  might  not  /all 
in  pleasant  places.  He  had  reason  to  be  satisfied  afterwards  with  the 
geography  that  made  Ohio  the  "  hub"  of  the  Commission. 

A  great  load  seemed  to  hare  been  lifted  from  the  committees.  The  ven 
erable  Thurman  enthusiastically  declared  that  "the  agreement  of  the  two 
committees  would  be  hailed  with  joy  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the 
other.  The  effect  on  its  business  would  be  immediately  felt."  Mr.  Hewitt 
spoke  for  the  great  commercial  metropolis.  He  declared  that  it  was  worth 
five  hundred  millions  to  the  country  at  once.  Mr.  Hoar's  benevolent  face 
beamed  with  delight.  He  waxed  eloquent  over  the  auspicious  result.  He 
declared  that  this  committee  action  would  be  considered  as  one  of  the  most 
important  events  of  history.  That  the  two  great  parties,  after  the  heat  of 
;a  quarrel  over  dynasties,  should  be  able  to  meet  deliberately  and  agree  upon 


648  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

a  settlement  of  their  differences  without  the  shedding  of  a  drop  of  blood, 
would,  in  his  opinion,  strike  the  student  of  history  as  something  hardly 
short  of  miraculous.  Other  members  of  the  committee  indulged  in  like 
gratulations  over  this  crowning  grandeur  of  their  work.  The  constitutional 
requirements  were  forgotten  in  the  general  joy.  But  Mr.  Morton  was  still 
himself.  He  had  no  joy.  He  watched.  He  found  fault  with  a  feature  of 
the  bill  which  might  be  interpreted  as  conferring  power  on  the  Commission 
to  go  behind  the  returns.  To  this  criticism  Senator  Thurman  replied  that 
the  bill  decided  no  disputed  questions.  It  created  no  new  powers ;  but  it 
submitted  all  disputes  to  this  tribunal.  It  submitted  them  with  the  same 
powers  —  no  more,  no  less  —  that  belong  to  the  two  houses  of  Congress, 
jointly  or  severally.  "  It  is,"  he  said,  "  as  to  disputed  questions  of  jurisdic 
tion,  as  non-committal  a  bill  as  could  be  made." 

The  great  work  is  accomplished  !  Mr.  Edmunds  and  Mr.  Thurman  are 
made  a  committee  to  prepare  an  address  to  accompany  the  submission  of  the 
bill  to  Congress.  The  members  of  the  two  committees  descend  the  great 
stone  steps  of  the  Capitol  as  the  evening  shadows  are  falling.  They  go  to 
their  homes  with  light  hearts,  sincerely  feeling  that  the  country  is  saved  from 
chaos  by  this  unwonted  and  courageous  proceeding.  For  the  last  time,  the 
committees  meet  on  the  morning  of  Jan.  18,  1877.  Mr.  Chairman  Edmunds 
reads  the  address  which,  in  conjunction  with  Mr.  Thurman,  he  had  prepared. 
It  is  altered  to  suit  various  suggestions.  The  critical  Senator  from  Massa 
chusetts,  Mr.  Hoar,  raised  an  objection  to  the  phrase  that  u  it  is  comparatively 
unimportant  who  is  President."  "In  my  opinion,"  said  he,  "it  is  of 
immense  importance  which  party  rules  the  country." — Outgoes  the  obnox 
ious  phrase !  Senator  Conkling  lays  down  the  broad  proposition  that  it  is 
"always  unwise,  in  large  transactions,  to  do  anything  unnecessary."  He 
then  proceeds  to  criticise  the  phrase  in  the  address,  "  If  such  jurisdiction  is 
not  invested  by  the  Constitution  this  bill  creates  it."  He  maintains  that  no 
jurisdiction  wras  created  by  the  Constitution  which  is  not  vested  somewhere. 
"Can  we,"  he  asks,  "by  a  legislative  act  create  a  jurisdiction?  We  may 
create  a  tribunal  to  exercise  jurisdiction ;  but  can  we  create  the  jurisdiction 
itself  ?  "  "  Ihis  report,"  he  says,  "  is  to  be  put  under  a  microscope.  It  is  to 
be  examined  with  great  care.  No  man  can  vote  for  this  bill  unless  he  believes 
the  power  bestowed  exists  somewhere."  Here  Mr.  Hoar  suggests  the  follow 
ing  phraseology  :  "If  the  Constitution,  requiring  the  exercise  of  this  juris 
diction,  does  not  designate  a  tribunal  or  officer  to  execute  it,  this  bill  pro 
vides  such  a  tribunal."  "I  prefer,"  replies  New- York's  eminent  Senator, 
"  to  say  just  what  we  mean.  If  we  have  that  right,  it  is  because  the  Consti 
tution  requires  the  two  houses  to  do  it,  or  the  Constitution  not  making  such 
requirement  expects  the  law-making  power  to  provide  it.  This  is  our  ped 
iment.  Take  that  from  under  us  and  we  are  gone.  This  bill  goes  to  the 
theory  of  regulating  and  adjusting  the  power  already  held.  Mr.  Hoar's 


AGREEMENT  BETWEEN  THE  COMMITTEES.  649 

amendment  implies  that  the  law-making  pofver  is  vested  in  the  tribunal. 
That  is  not  my  theory.  Mine  is  that  the  Constitution  requires  Congress  to 
declare  a  President.  The  two  houses  employ  this  tribunal  as  an  auxiliary, 
as  eyes  and  hands.  We  do  not  delegate  this  power.  We  keep  it  all.  This 
is  our  own  ministration."  Senator  Bayard  closes  the  discussion.  He  de 
clares  that  it  will  be  a  grave  error,  and  perhaps  indefensible,  if  this  report 
shall  deny  the  vesting  of  powrer,  and  yet  prescribe  its  exercise.  But  the  com 
mittees,  as  a  whole,  are  in  no  mood  to  stand  on  mere  technicalities  of  lan 
guage.  After  a  long  breath  of  suspense,  the  address  receives  all  the  signa 
tures  except  that  of  Senator  Morton.  The  two  chairmen  slip  duplicate  bills 
into  their  side  pockets  and  repair  to  their  respective  chambers. 

The  fact  that  the  committees  had  agreed,  and  that  the  two  parties  were 
then  practically  committed  to  the  agreement,  was  the  signal  for  a  patriotic 
outburst  throughout  the  country.  The  memory  of  i86i-'65  was  too  fresh  for 
the  f.  ?ople  not  to  welcome  any  peaceful  avenue  of  escape.  They  shrank  from 
a  repetition  of  past  bloody  experiences.  To  resist  the  pressure  from  without 
for  the  passage  of  the  Electoral  bill  required  a  moral  courage  such  as  is 
vouchsafed  to  few  legislatures.  The  bill  went  through  both  houses  with  im 
petuous  promptitude.  Its  chief  opponents  in  the  Senate  were  Mr.  Morton 
and  Mr.  Sherman  ;  and  in  the  House,  Mr.  Garfield,  of  Ohio,  and  Mr.  Mills, 
of  Texas.  Almost  the  first  response  to  the  submission  of  the  bill  came 
from  Massachusetts,  where  a  prolonged  struggle  over  Senator  Boutwell's 
seat  was  suddenly  ended  in  the  triumph  of  Mr.  Hoar.  Speeches  of  rare 
eloquence  and  power  were  made  for  the  bill  in  both  Senate  and  House. 
Mr.  Conkling  spoke  for  two  days.  Among  other  things,  he  riddled  to 
shreds  the  pretension  that  the  Vice-President  had  the  right  to  "  count"  the 
electoral  votes.  Senator  Hill,  of  Georgia,  made  a  speech  of  unusual 
cogency.  It  breathed  throughout  the  true  patriotic  spirit.  He  favored  the 
expedient  with  all  his  acumen  and  eloquence.  His  enthusiasm  kindled  a 
lambent  flame  charged  with  electric  force.  As  he  reached  his  peroration  he 
was  handed  a  telegram,  announcing  that  the  protracted  contest  for  Senator 
in  his  state  had  just  ended  in  the  senatorial  toga  being  again  placed  on  his 
shoulders.  The  popular  tide  was  now  all  one  way.  It  was  irresistible. 
What  would  be  the  consummation  ?  The  Democrats  felt  secure  in  the  jus 
tice  of  their  cause.  No  matter  to  them  who  might  be  the  fifth  judge  whose 
choice  was  to  determine  the  party  bias  of  the  Commission.  No  one  doubted, 
however,  that  the  choice  of  the  fifth  judge  would  fall  upon  Mr.  Justice 
Davis.  He  was  the  only  one  left  on  the  bench  on  whom  the  two  Demo 
cratic  and  the  two  Republican  judges  could  possibly  unite.  He  was,  to  be 
sure,  an  unknown  element,  but  notwithstanding  this  the  Democrats  had  more 
confidence  in  his  impartiality  than  the  Republicans  seemed  to  have.  How 
the  action  of  the  Commission  so  equipoised  might  have  eventuated  must 
ever  be  a  subject  for  speculation,  and  speculation  only.  Judge  Davis,  whose 
41 


650  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

political  belongings  were  so  fruitful  a  theme  of  discussion  in  the  committees, 
and  in  whom  centered  alike  the  hopes  of  Democrats  and  the  fears  of  Repub 
licans,  was  not  born  to  sit  on  the  Electoral  Commission.  Fate  had  ordained 
otherwise. 

When  the  proceedings  had  reached  this  harmonious  stage,  a  cloud  no 
larger  than  a  man's  hand  was  discerned  in  the  western  sky.  An  Illinois 
•"  Independent,"  not  having  the  fear  of  General  Logan  before  his  eyes,  cast 
his  vote  for  Judge  Davis  for  Senator.  That  "Independent"  little  dreamt 
that  his  craft  bore  Caesar  and  his  fortunes  ;  or  that  he  was  playing  the  role 
of  General  Monk.  The  Illinois  Democrats  in  the  legislature,  gifted  with  a 
fatuity  beyond  their  age  or  generation,  with  a  vision  hardly  extended  beyond 
their  physical  organs,  swung  into  line,  and  the  news  was  flashed  over  the 
wires  that  Judge  David  Davis  had  been  elected  to  fill  the  seat  of  John  A. 
Logan  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  !  That  dispatch  was  pregnant  with 
stupendous  significance  to  the  American  people,  for  it  meant,  as  the  fifth 
judge  on  the  Commission,  Joseph  P.  Bradley !  The  Electoral  bill  was 
still  pending  in  Congress,  but  had  either  party  been  then  inclined  to  de 
feat  it  they  could  hardly  have  done  so.  Both  parties  were  fully  committed 
to  it.  It  is  not  certain  that  either  wished  to  recede.  It  was  plain,  however, 
that  from  that  moment  Democratic  hopes  went  down,  and  that  Republican 
apprehension  was  succeeded  by  confidence.  Judge  Davis*  acceptance  of 
the  senatorial  seat  removed  him  from  the  list  of  probabilities  for  the  fifth 
judgeship  of  the  Commission. 

In.  the  further  selection  of  the  members  of  this  Electoral  Commission, 
and  by  arrangement  between  the  two  parties,  the  Republican  Senate  was  to 
name  three  Republicans  and  two  Democrats,  and  the  Democratic  House 
three  Democrats  and  two  Republicans.  The  party  caucus  was  in  each  house 
the  medium  of  selection.  The  choice  of  the  caucus  was  in  every  case  ratified 
by  the  respective  houses.  The  four  judges  named  in  the  bill  had,  in  the 
meantime,  as  expected,  selected  Justice  Bradley  as  the  fifth  judge.  The 
Commission,  as  finally  made  up,  consisted  of  the  following  gentlemen  : 

On  the  part  of  the  Supreme  Court:  Associate  Justices  Clifford,  of 
Maine  ;  Miller,  of  Iowa  ;  Field,  of  California  ;  Strong,  of  Pennsylvania  ;  and 
Bradley,  of  New  Jersey. 

On  the  part  of  the  Senate :  Edmunds,  of  Vermont ;  Frelinghuysen,  of 
New  Jersey ;  Morton,  of  Indiana ;  Thurman,  of  Ohio ;  and  Bayard,  of 
Delaware. 

On  the  part  of  the  House  of  Representatives  :  Payne,  of  Ohio  ;  Abbott, 
of  Massachusetts ;  Hunton,  of  Virginia ;  Garfield,  of  Ohio ;  and  Hoar  of 
Massachusetts. 

Eight  Republicans,  associated  with  seven  Democrats,  were  thus  to  sit  in 
judgment  on  the  electoral  returns  of  the  disputed  states.  Their  judgment 
was  to  be  binding,  unless  both  houses  concurred  in  overruling  it. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII. 


THE   ELECTORAL  COUNT   OF   1877. 

EVENTFUL  DAYS  OF  HISTORY  — MEETING  OF  THE  HOUSES  TO  COUNT  THE  VOTE  — 
FLORIDA  IS  REACHED  —  EXCITEMENT  —  RECESS  —  ELECTORAL  COMMISSION 
MEETS  — THE  OLD  SENATE  ROOM  —  THE  COMMISSION  ORGANIZED  — THE  ATTOR 
NEYS  —  THE  JUDGMENT  ON  FLORIDA— JUDGE  BRADLEY  — HIS  NON-SEQUITUR 
—  ALIUNDE  —  'E.KyLIN'E.  TAINTED  —  REPUBLICAN  TRIUMPH  —  DEMOCRATIC  DES 
PONDENCY—THE  COUNT  RESUMED  —  SOUTH  CAROLINA  —  LOUISIANA  —  THE 
AUTHOR'S  SPEECH  — SPEECHES  OF  OTHER  MEMBERS  — SCATHING  INVECTIVES 
OF  JUDGE  BLACK  AND  JOSEPH  S.  C.  BLACKBURN  —  OREGON,  WISCONSIN,  AND 
VERMONT  VOTES  —  THE  CONCLUSION  —  THE  STARS  AND  STRIPES  LOWERED  — 
DE  FACTO  AND  DE  JURE. 


M 


EN  will  regard  the  year  1877  as  grimed  with  the  blackest  fact  and 
the  greatest  political  wrong  of  our  history.  There  was  then 
repressed  the  greatest  right  pertaining  to  the  American  people. 
Forbearance  on  their  part  and  the  goodness  of  God,  alone  pre 
vented  terrible  results.  There  is  a  time  when,  if  injury  be  inflicted,  it  can 
not  be  forgotten.  There  is  no  Lethe  for  the  outrage.  The  barbed  shaft  ran 
kles  remedilessly  and  poisons  forever.  The  -season  of  Democratic  memory 
will  ever  be  the  Centennial  year.  The  volumes  most  cherished,  handed  down 
by  Democratic  ancestors,  are  the  writings  of  Algernon  Sidney.  They  were 
the  sacred  writings  of  one  who  died  upon  the  scaffold  as  a  devotee  to  his 
imaginary  commonwealth.  When  he  wrote  for  the  sanctio  recti,  in  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  his  discourses,  he  not  only  inspired  such  men  as  Rous 
seau  in  France,  and  Jefferson  in  America,  but,  as  it  should  be,  he  made  the 
law  derive  its  excellency  not  from  antiquity,  nor  from  the  dignity  of  legisla 
tures,  but  from  an  intrinsic  equity  and  justice  which  accorded  with  universal 
reason.  He  not  only  inspired  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  but  he 
taught  that,  as  that  which  is  not  just  is  not  law,  so,  that  which  is  not  law 
ought  not  to  be  obeyed.  If  his  ideal  cannot  be  realized  in  human  affairs,  it 
is  none  the  less  a  moral  mentor, — one  never  more  needed  than  in  1877*  The 
ideals  of  Plato,  Harrington,  Sir  Thomas  More,  and  Lord  Bacon  were  the 


652  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

delight  of  the  author's  early  days  ;  for  in  them  were  found  the  pole  star  by 
which  all  political  ventures  should  be  guided.  To  see  our  country  approxi 
mate  the  ideal,  where  perfect  liberty  and  right  should  find  hospitality,  was 
inspiration  and  pride.  But  the  year  1877  broke  the  idol  and  destroyed  the 
ideal.  Amidst  all  the  rough  waves  and  dangerous  rocks  of  the  last  "  three 
decades,"  it  has  been  the  author's  place  to  be  on  the  deck ;  and  while  the 
star  at  times  has  seemed  obscured,  never  yet  has  it  been  so  utterly  eclipsed 
as  by  the  blackness  of  that  portentous  year,  1877. 

No  day  of  greater  import  ever  came  to  this  hemisphere  than  that  appointed 
for  the  count  of  the  electoral  vote.  Both  houses  meet, in  the  great  Hall  of 
Representatives.  Senator  Ferry,  of  Michigan,  President  pro  temporevi  the 
Senate,  is  in  the  chair.  Speaker  Randall  is  by  his  side.  The  galleries  are 
packed  with  men  and  women  of  the  white  and  negro  races,  and  of  all  local 
ities.  Public  expectation  stands  upon  the  tiptoe  of  trepidation.  The  cer 
tificates  containing  the  electoral  votes  are  opened  by  President  Ferry.  He 
hands  them  to  the  appointed  tellers.  The  votes  of  state  after  state,  in  alpha 
betical  order,  are  duly  recorded,  now  in  the  Tilden  and  now  in  the  Hayes 
column.  All  goes  serenely  for  a  time  ;  when  lo  !  a  wild  excitement  and  a 
hush  of  expectation  !  Florida  is  reached  !  The  Chair  announces  that  from 
Florida  there  are  two  sets  of  returns.  By  the  law  under  which  they  are  act 
ing,  these  two  sets,  he  declares,  must  go  to  the  Electoral  Commission. 
Thereupon  the  joint  convention  takes  a  recess, —  for  it  never  "adjourns" 
until  the  count  is  finally  completed.  Each  house  in  its  own  way  resumes 
legislative  business.  All  wait  for  the  tribunal  to  which  Congress  has  so  im- 
providently  delegated  its  duties. 

The  Electoral  Commission  meets  in  the  room  of  the  Supreme  Court.  It 
was  formerly  the  United  States  Senate  Chamber.  Its  vaulted  roof,  in  times 
past,  reverberated  with  the  eloquence  of  Webster,  Clay,  Calhoun,  Marcy, 
Benton,  and  Seward.  The  echoes  of  those  memorable  debates  might  even 
yet  be  heard  within  those  historic  walls,  where  the  Commission  is  now 
convened,  which  is  to  bring  so  much  obloquy  upon  the  Court  which  is 
wont  to  sit  on  that  bench.  Justice  Clifford,  the  senior  judge,  takes  the  chair. 
The  fourteen  others  range  themselves  in  the  seats  commonly  occupied  by  the 
dispensers  of  justice.  The  five  judges  are  in  the  centre.  They  are  flanked 
on  their  right  by  the  five  Senators.  On  the  left  are  the  five  Representatives. 
At  the  foot  of  the  line,  at  the  left,  sits  one  who  is  destined  to  fill  a  large  and 
tragic  space  in  the  history  of  the  near  future.  It  is  James  A.  Garfield.  On 
each  side  of  this  wonderful  forensic  battle,  is  an  eminent  array  of  counsel. 
What  is  the  case?  It  is  the  great  contention  of  our  century.  It  is  no  pri 
vate  suit ;  not  even  an  action  between  states.  It  concerns  fifty  millions  of 
people.  It  enlists  the  talents  of  O'Conor,  Evarts,  Matthews,  Merrick,  Car 
penter,  Hoadley,  Campbell,  and  Ashbel  Green.  From  the  first,  it  is  evident 
that  the  chief  reliance  of  the  Republican  side  of  the  contest  is  the  astute  and 


THE  FLORIDA  VOTES  COUNTED  FOR  HAYES.        653 

learned  leader  of  the  New-York  bar,  William  Maxwell  Evarts.  If  Mr. 
Evarts  cannot  make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason,  then  is  their  cause 
vain.  The  first  step  of  the  Electoral  Commission  is  to  assume  the  regularity 
of  the  returns  of  the  Hayes  electors.  This  is  done  on  the  plea  that  they  have 
come  up  under  the  seal  of  the  state.  Therefore  the  Tilden  electors  are 
classed  as  contestants.  Another  act  is  even  more  ominous.  The  Commission 
excludes  all  evidence  "  aliunde"  It  will  not  go  behind  the  returns.  It  will 
not  see  whether  they  were  born  of  fraud.  To  make  fraud  sacred  requires 
only  a  proper  distribution  ofprtmafacte  papers.  Even  in  its  earliest  stages, 
the  malign  spirit  of  partisanship  thus  crops  out  in  the  Commission.  The 
judges  are  not  of  different  clay  from  their  associates.  Whether  it  be  political 
or  judicial,  it  is  all  of  a  kind. 

V  The  lawyers  have  finished,  and  the  case  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Commis 
sion.  One  after  another,  each  of  the  members  reads  his  opinion  in  secret 
session.  Fourteen  members  of  the  Commission  are  heard  from.  Fourteen 
men,  sworn  to  hear  and  impartially  to  judge,  divide  on  a  party  line,  —  seven 
being  quite  sure  that  the  Tilden  electors  from  the  State  of  Florida  are  regu 
larly  chosen,  and  that  their  votes  should  be  counted  in  the  Electoral  College. 
Seven  are  just  as  firmly  convinced  that  the  Hayes  electors  have  the  only 
stamp  of  regularity.  Justice  Bradley  alone  remains  to  be  heard  from.  All 
eyes  are  turned  to  the  Jerseyman.  Chosen  as  he  had  been,  to  enact  the  role 
of  a  non-partisan,  is  he  not  still  a  judge?  Is  not  his  symbol  and  his  effigy 
the  blind  goddess,  holding  the  scales  of  justice  in  equipoise  ?  The  Democrats 
of  the  Commission  look,  not  without  some  confidence,  to  Judge  Bradley. 
Would  he  save  the  Supreme  Court  from  the  threatened  disgrace?  Would 
he  decide  on  merely  partisan  lines  ?  Would  his  party  bias  bend  his  judgment 
on  a  question  involving  the  most  stupendous  consequences  ever  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  a  court  ?  Pale  and  trembling,  Judge  Bradley  unfolds  his  manu 
script.  He  begins  to  read.  He  is  impressed,  apparently,  with  a  sense  of  the 
overwhelming  responsibility  resting  upon  his  conscience  and  conduct.  As 
he  reads,  Democratic  hopes  grow  bright  and  brighter.  Justice  will  dawn  at 
last  with  auroral  splendor.  Alas  !  The  drift  of  his  argument  leads  to  but  one 
conclusion.  The  end  is  not  the  fruit  of  the  promised  exordium.  Florida's 
vote,  we  all  know,  belongs  to  Tilden.  Change !  The  wind  suddenly 
veers,  and  Mr.  Justice  Bradley  accomplishes  a  dexterous  non  sequitur. 
He  closes  with  the  assurance  that  his  vote  must  be  given  to  the  counting 
of  Florida  for  Hayes. 

In  " counting"  the  votes  from  the  State  of  Florida,  it  was  held  that  Con 
gress,  which  had  full  constitutional  power  to  "  count"  them,  was  concluded 
by  the  governor's  certificate.  Had  not  the  latter  been  made  in  accordance 
with  the  decision  of  the  returning  board  ?  Offers  are  made  to  impeach  the 
decision  of  this  board.  It  is  impeachable,  for  want  of  jurisdiction  to  do  what 
it  did.  What  it  did,  changes  the  result.  "I  know  of  no  tribunal,"  says 


654  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Judge  Thurman,  "  high  or  low,  whose  acts,  without  jurisdiction  or  beyond 
its  jurisdiction,  are  not  absolutely  void."  And  so  every  honest  lawyer  and 
man  will  aver.  The  county  returns  of  Florida  gave  the  vote  to  the  Demo 
cratic  electors.  This  is  not  disputed.  The  court  so  decided  it.  Every  de 
partment  in  Florida  so  decided.  The  state  remedy  had  been  applied  to 
correct  the  fraud.  It  was  applied  timely.  Its  results  are  ignored  by  the 
Electoral  Commission. 

The  Democrats  of  the  Commission  felt  the  humiliation  of  this  departure 
from  constitutional  methods.  Judge  Bradley  would  never  have  been  guilty  of 
such  stultification  unless  he  had  deliberately  decided  to  accept  its  full  conse 
quences  and  to  gather  its  substantial  fruits.  Such  an  excoriation  as  Mr. 
Payne,  the  Nestor  of  the  House  commission,  gave  this  unjust  judge  for  his 
betrayal  of  the  high  trust  reposed  in  him,  has  probably  not  been  heard  since 
Sheridan's  philippic  against  Hastings.  Sadder,  but  wiser  men,  were  the 
Democratic  "seven  "when  they  marched  out  of  the  Supreme  Court  room 
that  memorable  afternoon.  The  chivalric  Bayard,  who  in  the  Electoral 
committee  had  erected  a  lofty  pedestal  upon  which  the  Supreme  Court  judges 
should  stand,  bore  the  mien  of  one  whose  illusions  had  been  rudely  dispelled. 
Mr.  Hoar,  who  had,  to  his  associates  in  framing  the  bill,  scouted  the  idea 
that  the  Supreme  Court  judges  would  be  willing  to  go  down  to  history  as 
dividing  on  a  question  of  such  transcendent  importance  on  a  party  line,  and 
had  expressed  his  conviction  that  their  bias  against  thus  appearing  in  history 
would  be  infinitely  greater  than  any  mere  party  partiality  which  they  might 
feel,  smiled  benignantly  behind  his  gold  spectacles.  He  was  quite  content 
with  the  bias,  so  long  as  his  party  received  its  benefit. 

The  air  of  the  national  capital  became  oppressive.  A  callous  numbness 
seemed  to  have  settled  upon  the  national  consciousness.  Only  the  Federal 
office-holders  breathed  easier.  The  decision  of  the  Commission  was  sub 
mitted  to  Congress.  The  Senate,  by  a  strict  party  vote,  concurred  in  it. 
The  House,  also  by  a  strict  party  vote,  refused  to  concur.  Not  a  Republican 
voice  was  raised  in  either  branch  of  Congress  against  counting  Florida's  vote 
against  Florida's  choice.  Again  the  Senate  files  into  the  Hall  of  Representa 
tives.  The  count  is  resumed.  Florida's  four  votes  are  added  to  the  Hayes 
column.  The  certificates  of  other  states  are  opened  and  counted,  until  Louis 
iana  is  called. 

Louisiana  is  found  prolific  of  returns  —  not  two  only,  but  a  third  set 
also.  The  third  set  is  signed  "John  Smith,  bulldozed  Governor  of  Louisi 
ana."  It  purports  to  give  "  the  proceedings  of  the  college  of  electors  at 
New  Orleans  of  December  6,  1876."  This  set  proves  to  be  a  joke.  It  is  a 
ghastly  joke,  to  interrupt  even  so  grave  a  farce.  Its  reading  is  dispensed 
with ;  and  it  is  ordered  to  be  suppressed  from  the  record.  Under  the  law 
regulating  the  count,  all  papers,  with  the  objections  raised  on  either  side,  go 
to  the  Commission.  That  body  met  on  Monday,  February  12,  and  went 


THE  LOUISIANA  VOTES  COUNTED  FOR  HAYES.  655 

through  the  forms  of  judicial  consideration.  In  the  Florida  case  the  counsel 
representing  Mr.  Tilden  included  such  forensic  giants  as  Charles  O'Conor, 
Judge  Black,  and  Richard  T.  Merrick.  Arrayed  against  them,  were  William 
M.  Evarts,  Edward  W.  Stoughton,  Stanley  Matthews,  and  Samuel  Shella- 
barger.  The  same  counsel  represented  Mr.  Hayes'  side  of  the  controversy 
in  the  Louisiana  case ;  while  for  Mr.  Tilden  appeared  the  venerable  Judge 
Campbell,  of  Louisiana,  who,  before  the  war,  had  himself  filled  an  honored 
seat  on  the  bench  of  that  same  Supreme  Court,  ex-Senator  Lyman  Trum- 
bull,  ex-Senator  Carpenter,  George  Hoadley,  now  governor  of  Ohio,  and 
Ashbel  Green,  an  eminent  New-York  lawyer.  A  more  formidable  array  of 
legal  talent  this  country  had  never  seen  before  any  tribunal.  Senator  Car 
penter  prefaces  his  argument  by  disclaiming  that  he  appears  for  Mr.  Tilden. 
"  He  is  a  gentleman,"  said  Wisconsin's  late  Republican  Senator,  "  whose 
acquaintance  I  have  not  the  honor  of  ;  with  whom  I  have  no  sympathy ; 
against  whom  I  voted  on  the  seventh  day  of  November  last ;  and  if  this  tri 
bunal  could  order  a  new  trial,  I  should  vote  against  him  again,  believing  as 
I  do,  that  the  accession  of  the  Democratic  party  to  power  in  this  country 
to-day  would  be  the  greatest  calamity  that  could  befall  the  people,  except 
one  ;  and  that  one  greater  calamity  would  be  to  keep  him  out  by  fraud  and 
falsehood.  I  appear  here,"  added  Mr.  Carpenter,  "for  ten  thousand  legal 
voters  of  Louisiana,  who,  without  accusation  or  proof,  indictment  or  trial, 
notice  or  hearing,  have  been  disfranchised  by  four  villains,  incorporated  with 
perpetual  session,  whose  official  title  is  c  The  Returning  Board  of  Louisiana.' " 
Evidence  is  offered  to  prove  that  more  than  ten  thousand  legal  votes  had  to 
be,  and  had  been  discarded  by  Wells  and  Anderson,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Returning  Board.  They  were  votes  that  had  been  cast  for  Mr.  Tilden. 
They  had  been  discarded  by  the  Board  in  order  to  count  out  Mr.  Tilden  and 
to  count  in  Mr.  Hayes.  All  such  evidence  is  ruled  out  by  the  Commission, 
eight  to  seven.  It  is  aliunde  !  The  nefarious  business  is  duly  sanctioned  by 
the  Commission,  which  solemnly  declares  that  Louisiana's  eight  electoral 
votes  were  cast  for  Mr.  Hayes. 

How  is  this  decision  reached?  By  reasoning,  or  by  —  chance?  When 
the  vote  began,  reason  closed  her  faculties,  honor  hung  her  head  in  shame. 
"  The  country,"  said  Justice  Field,  "  may  submit  to  the  result ;  but  it  will 
never  cease  to  regard  our  action  as  unjust,  and  as  calculated  to  sap  the  found 
ations  of  public  morality."  Eight  for  injustice  —  seven  for  morality  !  On 
the  1 6th  of  February,  Judge  Abbott  offers  to  show  by  evidence  that  the 
Louisiana  Returning  Board  is  unconstitutional  and  its  acts  void.  Another 
rattle  of  the  box  —  eight  to  seven  !  Then  that  it  was  not  legally  constituted  ; 
out  came  the  loaded  dice  —  eight  to  seven  !  Again  he  offers  to  prove  certain  al 
leged  frauds  —  the  same  rattle,  eight  to  seven  !  Then  no  jurisdiction  —  eight 
to  seven  !  Then  that  the  Returning  Board  statements  as  to  riot,  tumult,  and 
other  wrongs,  were  forged  by  the  Board,  and  besides,  came  too  late,  and 


656  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

that  more  than  ten  thousand  legal  votes  were  thrown  out — eight  to  seven ! 
Then  Judge  Hunton  moves  to  admit  evidence  that  the  proper  returns  of  the 
commissioners  of  Louisiana  had  never  been  compiled  or  canvassed  —  eight 
to  seven  !  Then  Senator  Bayard  moves  to  hear  evidence  to  show  the  ineligi- 
bility  of  certain  electors  —  eight  to  seven  !  Judge  Field  then  moves  for  evi 
dence  generally  —  eight  to  seven!  Mr.  Payne  moves,  in  a  quiet  way,  to 
strike  out  "  not,"  in  the  resolution  refusing  evidence  —  eight  to  seven  !  Judge 
Thurman  amends  Senator  Morton's  "  resolution  that  illegal  votes  be  not 
counted,  as  never  canvassed  or  declared"  — eight  to  seven  !  Then  the  vote 
on  Morton's  resolution  is  taken ;  and  then,  hark  to  the  sinister  click  of  the 
remorseless  handcuffs  !  Louisiana  is  thrust  within  the  bars  with  her  sister 
Florida  —  eight  to  seven  !  But  was  this  the  only  use  of  the  dice-box  ?  No  ! 
Other  tenders  of  testimony  from  other  states  were  disallowed  by  the  same 
cunning  device.  Does  Judge  Field  offer  to  prove  that  in  South  Carolina, 
troops  interfered  with  the  free  choice  of  the  state  ?  Rejected,  eight  to  seven. 
That  one  thousand  United  States  Marshals  performed  the  same  part  ?  Re 
jected,  eight  to  seven.  And  so  on  through,  until  the  audacious  farce  is  per 
formed.  The  result  gives  us  a  de facto  Executive,  with  such  color  of  right 
as  such  arts  fitly  paint  and  adorn. 

Of  what  use,  in  such  a  tribunal,  were  the  gathered  facts  of  the  election, 
or  the  gathered  experience  of  other  times  and  nations  ?  It  was  in  reference 
to  military  interference  that  Hallam  said  that  nothing  would  break  down 
the  notion  of  the  law's  supremacy,  like  the  perpetual  interference  of  those 
who  are  governed  by  another  law.  But  he  might  as  well  have  applied  the 
law  of  roulette,  or  the  chances  of  cards,  as  the  "other  law"  for  this  nefa 
rious  transaction.  It  had  neither  dignity  nor  justice.  The  very  lawyers 
laughed  before  the  Commission,  and  taunted  its  members  with  scornful  sar 
casm  for  the  pitiful  part  they  were  playing  for  party  supremacy. 

The  decision  of  the  Commission  in  the  Louisiana  case  left  but  a  small 
peg  for  the  Democratic  party  on  which  to  hang  its  hope.  Louisiana  was 
everywhere  looked  upon  by  most  members,  as  Mr.  Tilden's  strongest  position 
in  the  disputed  states.  If  he  could  not  hold  that  citadel,  what  could  he  ex 
pect?  So  shameless  was  the  action  of  the  Commission,  it  was  by  many  be 
lieved  that  Congress  could  not  so  far  forget  its  duty  to  truth  and  to  patriotism 
as  to  give  it  indorsement.  But  when  the  Commission's  decision  comes  to  be 
reviewed  by  the  Senate,  not  a  Republican  voice  is  heard  in  indignant  pro 
test.  Even  the  eminent  Senator  from  New- York,  Roscoe  Conkling,  is  dumb. 
When  the  vote  is  taken  he  is  absent.  Whether  or  not  it  is  true  that  Mr. 
Conkling's  silence  is  owing  to  his  having  tried  and  failed  to  secure  a  suffi 
cient  number  of  others  on  his  side  to  co-operate  with  the  Democrats  to  effect 
a  reversal  of  the  Commission's  decree,  certain  it  is  that,  in  not  raising  his 
voice  in  the  thunder  tones  of  which  he  is  so  capable,  in  denunciation  or 
the  projected  crime  against  popular  government,  the  New- York  Senator 


THE  AUTHOR'S  SPEECH  ON  THE  FRAUDS.  657 

abandons  his  greatest  opportunity.     He  folds  his  arms  and  holds  his  tongue. 
Meanwhile  the  conspiracy  progresses. 

Upon  the  1 9th  of  February,  1877?  the  House  met  under  increasing  ex 
citement  about  the  Louisiana  case.  The  Senate  had  sent  to  the  House  its  reso 
lution  announcing  its  decision  —  as  the  form  was — "the  objections  made  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding."  Gen.  Randall  Gibson,  a  leading  member 
from  Louisiana,  offered  an  adverse  order.  After  a  speech  from  Judge  New, 
of  Indiana,  in  favor  of  Mr.  Gibson's  order,  there  was  exhibited  the  first  and 
almost  the  only  instance  of  abnegation  of  partisanship.  Professor  Seelye, 
now  the  able  and  learned  President  of  Amherst  College,  in  a  pithy  speech 
declares  his  inability  to  see  any  justice  in  counting  the  vote  of  Louisiana  for 
either  candidate.  He  inveighs  against  the  decision,  for  the  pound  of  flesh 
can  not  be  taken  without  its  drop  of  blood.  "  No  nation,"  he  exclaims, — 
and  his  splendid  vocalization  startles  the  echo  in  the  halls  and  corridors, — 
"ever  died  except  by  suicide."  He  fears  imperilment  to  the  vote  of  the 
future.  A  weak  defense  of  the  wrong  comes  from  Mr.  Joyce,  of  New  Eng 
land.  Then  a  practical  answer  from  Mr.  Levy,  of  Louisiana.  After  Mr. 
McMahon  had  followed  in  the  vein  of  Mr.  Levy,  Mr.  Rice  and  Mr.  Crapo, 
both  of  Massachusetts,  as  if  to  offset  the  ringing  speech  of  Seelye,  appear 
to  champion  the  outrage.  The  writer  is  then  assigned  the  floor.  He  yields 
ten  minutes  to  Henry  Watterson.  The  gallant  Kentuckian  was  known  to  be 
an  intimate  friend  of  Mr.  Tilden.  In  melancholy  accents  he  chanted,  with 
vaticinatory  periods,  those  sad  days,  and  the  coming  of  the  day  of  reckon 
ing —  dies  irce,  dies  ilia.  Then  the  writer  began  his  brief  analysis  of  the 
Louisiana  case.  "Peril,"  said  he,  "gives  the  lessons  of  years  in  a  day." 
This  judgment  being  foregone,  the  speech  was  made  for  history.  As  such, 
parts  of  it  are  here  substantially  reported. 

"  The  people  of  the  United  States,  desiring  unity  and  peace,  honesty  and 
rejuvenescence,  spoke  in  all  legal  forms  provided  by  a  complicated  system  of 
electors  in  favor  of  a  party  whose  traditions,  principles,  and  history  of  hon 
orable  service  have  rendered  it  deathless,  and  against  a  new  party  of 
expedients  and  pretensions.  That  deathless  party  was  unmistakably  called 
to  the  high  places  of  the  land.  It  matters  not  who  were  its  select  exponents 
or  candidates ;  and  it  matters  not  now  what  were  its  shibboleths  and  plat 
forms.  Whether  wise  or  not,  far  sighted  or  not,  just  to  all  races  and  sections 
or  not,  prudent  in  economy,  provident  in  matters  of  tax  andjfoc  or  not, 
organic  and  faithful  to  the  rules  of  construction  applied  under  the  genius  of 
our  peculiar  polity  or  not,  an  unquestioned  popular  majority  of  three  hun 
dred  thousand  pronounced  for  relief  and  change,  and  for  the  Democracy  as 
the  directing  organ  of  that  relief  and  change. 

"  Under  our  system  of  state  and  Federal  authority,  this  Federal  change  and 
relief  was  to  be  certified  by  certain  state  organisms  and  verified  by  a  certain 
procedure  under  our  Federal  Constitution. 


658  THREE  DECADES  OF    FEDERAL   LEGISLATION. 

It  was  early  made  clear  by  certain  manoeuvres  and  devices  of  politicians 
that  the  voice  of  the  people  of  two,  if  not  three,  states  was  to  be  muffled,  or 
rather  that  a  false  voice  was  to  be  heard  in  the  land  proclaiming  that  which 
was  not,  for  that  which  was.  It  was  the  siren  voice  of  Duessa,  and  not  the 
blessed  voice  of  Una.  It  was  a  voice  which  sounded  high  for  state  rights, 
like  that  of  the  actor  through  the  Grecian  mask,  hollow  and  mocking, 
while  at  the  same  time  it  seemed  to  proceed  from  some  hero  or  demigod 
raised  to  unusual  height  by  the  tricks  of  the  stage. 

Whether  the  steps  were  wisely  or  unwisely  taken  in  framing  the  Electoral 
bill,  is  not  to  be  now  considered.  That  bill  is  the  law.  We  know  what  it 
is,  what  its  provisions  are.  We  knew  and  felt  that  some  virtue  had  gone 
out  of  this  House  when  we  had  passed  it,  but  we  did  not  exactly  see  where 
the  virtue  had  alighted.  We  knew  the  old  privileges  of  the  Commons  had 
departed,  but  in  the  interest  of  peace  we  gave  a  reluctant  vote  for  the  bill. 

It  wTas  voted  for  in  a  spirit  of  confidence  and  in  a  moment  of  peril,  and 
under  terror  of  force  and  revolution,  which  speaks  more  for  the  caution  than 
for  the  pluck  of  our  people.  Still  it  was  enacted.  We  are  bound  by  its  de 
cisions,  but  not  by  its  reasons.  The  faith  of  those  who  voted  for  it  was 
strong  in  the  integrity  and  purity  of  their  case  ;  and  next  in  the  fidelity  and 
independence  of  the  tribunal.  We  placed  our  faith  in  the  ermine. 

But  one  strange  thing  about  the  bill  is  this :  while  we  are  permitted  to 
vote  in  this  House,  yet  after  all  it  is  a  sort  of  post  mortem  vote.  Although  we 
are  permitted  to  argue,  it  is  an  argumentum  ad  post  factum.  Although 
there  is  some  utility  in  the  dissection  of  the  dead,  and  although  there  may 
be  something  gained  by  experiments  upon  the  living,  yet  it  seems  to  me  to  be 
proper  now  to  look  at  one  particular  clause  of  the  law  before  stating  reasons 
for  making  protest  against  this  measure. 

We  are  graciously  permitted  under  this  bill  to  argue  after  the  matter  is 
accomplished,  and  although  we  vote,  and  although  we  carry  our  vote  in  the 
House,  we  are  '  gone/  We  gain  nothing.  We  are  permitted  to  talk  ten 
minutes  after  the  counting  and  the  conclusion.  It  is  the  old  Virgilian  line 
over  again  about  Rhadamanthus,  judge  of  hell —  Castigatque  audit que 
dolos  —  the  old  rule  of  hanging  a  man  and  trying  him  afterward.  That  is. 
our  condition  to-day. 

And  what  is  it  we  try  ?  Why,  sir,  everything  as  to  testimony  and  facts 
and  forgery  and  perjury  and  force  is  aliunde — outside — not  to  be  considered. 
Truth  and  justice  and  morality  and  fair  dealing  —  aliunde.  The  House  is 
aliunde.  All  its  acts  and  the  acts  of  its  committees  and  their  reports,  all  the 
facts  gathered  in  these  Southern  States  —  aliunde  I  Nothing  to  be  considered 
but  the  bare,  naked  fact  of  a  certificate,  based  upon  what  ?  On  forgery  and 
chicanery.  On  a  returning  board,  which  returned  the  fact  that  10,400  Dem 
ocratic  votes  were  not  counted ;  on  a  supervisor  of  registration  of  Louis 
iana,  whose  business  was  to  transmit  the  votes,  but  who  failed  to  transmit 


THE  AUTHOR'S  SPEECH  ON  THE  FRAUDS.  659 

2,900  Democratic  votes.  After  they  came,  only  four  hours  were  left  be 
tween  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  board  and  the  decision  !  Where 
and  how  could  the  state  correct  such  returns  in  that  time  ?  It  is  a  mockery. 
Why,  sir,  nothing  but  forgery  and  chicanery  are  pertinent  and  competent. 
It  is  said  that  beauty  deformed  and  mutilated,  is  more  hideous  than  natural 
ugliness.  The  Parthenon  is  deformed  by  Turkish  barbarism  and  despoiled 
by  Lord  Elgin's  archaeological  devotion ;  and  so  our  institutions,  including 
the  high  judicial  tribunal,  are  made  detestable,  not  merely  by  adventurous, 
barbarous,  ignorant,  and  reckless  rascality,  but  legal  science  comes  in  with 
its  spotless  ermine  to  make  the  spectacle  a  hideous  deformity,  by  consum 
mating  the  grand  outrage  of  history.  Fraud  taints  everything ;  all  codes, 
human  and  divine,  pursue  it  into  every  relation  of  society  and  avenue  of 
trust. 

Some  member  has  said  that  he  was  sick  of  fraud,  of  the  cry  of  fraud. 
Earth  is  sick,  and  heaven  is  weary  of  the  hollow  words  which  statesmen  and 
judges  use  when  they  talk  of  right  and  justice,  when  such  things  can  be 
accomplished.  I  tell  you,  Mr.  Speaker,  by  human  law  there  is  no  statute 
of  limitations  to  protect  fraud.  It  never  runs  for  fraud.  In  divine  law  it 
is  written,  "  There  is  no  rest  for  the  wicked."  Every  avenue  of  society, 
every  relation  of  trust  which  fraud  permeates,  shall  at  last  be  investigated 
and  the  fraud  made  null.  The  time  will  come,  if  not  now,  in  some  near 
future,  when  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  who  now  laugh  and  taunt,  because 
of  this  condition  in  which  the  Democrats  are  caught,  will  repent  of  this 
great  crime  of  history  of  which  they  are  participes  criminis. 

Time  never  runs  to  condone  fraud,  and  in  all  God's  universe  there  is  to 
be  ceaseless  unrest  for  its  vicious  votaries.  Where  fraud  taints  and  blackens, 
quibbles  from  lawyers,  technicalities  from  judges,  special  snapperadoes  from 
the  intellect,  are  as  grass  before  the  mower.  The  people  cannot  understand 
why  fraud  should  be  protected.  Chop  logic  and  split  hairs  to  the  nicest 
division  of  logomachy,  call  in  the  schoolmen,  make  your  legal  syllogisms  and 
refine  your  subtleties,  the  everlasting  rule  remains  that  where  fraud  is  found, 
nullity  and  void  follow.  Foxes  by  no  doubling  or  hunting,  can  confound 
the  fact  that  fraud  is  the  most  offensive  element  in  human  society,  and  most 
to  be  feared  when  the  fox  takes  the  disguise  of  the  ermine. 

Ah !  they  called  in  the  ermine  to  help  them.  The  ermine  is  a  little 
animal.  It  is  an  emblem  of  purity  ;  it  would  rather  be  caught  than  be  be 
draggled  in  the  mire.  Hunters  put  mud  around  its  haunt  to  catch  it.  But 
where  is  the  ermine  now  ?  Ah  !  the  fox  has  become  the  ermine.  But  no 
cunning,  no  craft,  no  human  law,  no  divine  law,  can  ever  condone  fraud.  All 
codes  and  the  histories  of  all  nations  cry  out  against  it.  Crime  cannot  breed 
crime  forever.  Ask  the  people  of  this  country.  Fraud  is  to  them  an  endless 
offense.  I  was  about,  Mr.  Speaker,  before  the  hammer  fell,  to  refer  to  the 
holy  writ,  so  that  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  may  have  time  for  repentance* 


660  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

With  permission  of  the  House,  I  will  read  from  Psalms  xciv.,  20  :  '  Shall 
the  throne  of  iniquity  have  fellowship  with  thee,  which  frameth  mischief  by  a 
law?' " 

MR.  KELLEY.     "  I  object." 

MR.  Cox.      "  The  Bible  is  aliunde  \vith  these  gentlemen." 

There  has  been  no  repentance.  But  the  appellation  of  "Aliunde"  has 
adhered  like  the  mythic  garment  of  poison  to  one  of  the  justices  of  the  Court. 
The  multitudinous  seas  cannot  wash  out  the  stain  upon  the  ermine.  Pro 
fessor  Seelye  was  not  alone  among  the  Republicans  in  denouncing  this  in 
effable  iniquity.  Ex-Mayor  Henry  L.  Pierce,  of  Boston,  joined  him.  With 
these  two  shining  exceptions,  the  Republican  party  in  Congress  was  solid 
as  a  granite  mountain,  in  support  of  the  infamy. 

The  Senators  crossed  the  great  rotunda  and  passed  through  the  hall  of  the 
statuesque  heroes.  They  again  took  their  places  in  the  Representatives' 
Chamber,  along  with  the  House.  President  Ferry  had  the  gracious  privilege 
of  announcing  that  the  two  houses  not  having  agreed  to  overrule  it,  the  de 
cision  of  the  Commission  would  stand.  Louisiana  was  then  counted  for 
Hayes. 

The  case  of  the  Louisiana  "count"  was  more  flagrant  than  that  of 
Florida.  There  was  no  power  lodged  anywhere  to  create  the  Returning 
Board.  The  board  became  de  facto  the  legislature.  It  corruptly  and  un 
lawfully  used  a  power  to  re-ordain  what  never  was  ordained.  It  assumed  to 
perpetuate  itself.  It  had  defeated  every  election  since  1872.  It  shamelessly 
and  without  any  honest  pretense  assumed  the  purple  of  the  state.  It 
played  the  mock  king  with  real  power.  It  assumed  to  disfranchise  voters, 
by  a  power  not  conferred  on  any  body  except  the  Judiciary.  It  was  not 
even  constituted  according  to  the  illegal  act  creating  it.  Out  of  eighty 
thousand  Democrats  in  the  state,  no  Democrat  was  in  the  board,  though 
it  was  required  by  that  act  that  all  parties  should  be  represented.  As  in 
Florida,  so  here,  the  board  acted  out  of  its  jurisdiction,  if  it  had  any;  and 
therefore  its  acts  of  disfranchisement  were  void.  It  was  tendered  in  proof 
that  there  was  no  evidence  of  intimidation  and  fraud  (which  were  the  pretext 
for  disfranchising  ten  or  twelve  thousand  voters)  accompanying  the  returns  as 
required  by  the  illegal  statute  creating  the  usurping  board  ;  and  that  such 
statements  as  were  irregularly  used  were  corruptly  fabricated  by  the  board  it 
self  in  New  Orleans,  weeks  after  the  election.  The  returns  of  the  obsequious 
supervisors — "consolidated,"  as  they  were  called  —  were  ostensibly  can 
vassed  to  cheat,  when  no  such  canvass  was  allowable  ;  while  the  returns  of 
the  commissioners  of  elections  should  have  been  the  only  basis  —  if  there 
was  any  —  upon  which  to  act. 

Rebutting  testimony —  "  reluctant  quarto  upon  solid  folio  "  —  was  offered, 
to  show  conspiracy,  perjury,  subornation  of  perjury,  forgery,  and  bribery. 


JUDGE  BLACK'S  APPEAL.  66l 

But  it  was  held  by  this  Commission,  that  the  men  named  by  this  board 
were  de  facto  electors,  because  they  were  not  ousted  de  jure  by  the  courts  ; 
and  that,  too,  although  the  courts  had  no  opportunity  to  oust  them  ;  and 
that  neither  courts  nor  Congress  could  right  the  wrong.  An  Ossa  of  wrong 
was  piled  on  a  Pelion  of  fraud  —  each  ascending  mass  worse,  if  possible, 
than  the  lower  stratum  !  Yet,  with  this  accumulation,  we  were  expected  to 
accept  what  we  could  not  consent  to  approve  !  When  Rousseau  contended, 
in  his  Social  Compact,  that  if  there  be  sovereigns,  one  of  right  and  the  other 
of  fact,  the  social  union  immediately  vanishes  and  the  body  politic  is  dis 
solved,  he  could  not  have  contemplated  a  case  more  flagrant  than  the  present 
Federal  authority,  constituted  through  such  malign  agencies. 

It  was  hard  to  restrain  the  men  who  were  on  the  rack  from  crying  out  in 
defiant  protest.  A  few  extracts  from  the  splendid  philippic  of  Judge 
Jeremiah  S.  Black,  will  illustrate  the  spirit  of  that  time.  He  spoke  of  his 
sense  of  degradation  and  humiliation  as  an  American  citizen,  by  the  wear 
and  tear  of  conscience  which  these  forgone  conclusions  indicated.  His  irony 
and  sarcasm  were  only  equaled  by  his  terrific  invective.  In  addressing  the 
"  eight"  commissioners,  he  said  :  "  Perhaps  the  feeling  which  I  in  common 
with  millions  of  others  entertain  on  this  subject,  prevents  us  from  seeing 
this  thing  in  its  true  light.  But  you  are  wise;  you  are  calm.  You  can 
look  all  through  this  awful  business  with  a  learned  spirit;  no  passionate 
hatred  of  this  great  fraud  can  cloud  your  mental  vision  or  shake  the  even 
balance  of  your  judgment.  You  do  not  think  it  any  wrong  that  a  nation 
should  be  cheated  by  false  election  returns.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  rather  a 
blessing  which  heaven  has  sent  us  in  this  strange  disguise.  When  the 
omnipotent  lie  shall  be  throned  and  sceptered  and  crowned  you  think  we 
ought  all  of  us  to  fall  down  and  worship  it  as  the  hope  of  our  political  sal 
vation.  You  will  teach  us  and  perhaps  we  will  learn  (perhaps  not)  that 
under  such  a  rule  we  are  better  off  than  if  truth  had  prevailed  and  justice 
been  triumphant.  Give,  then,  your  cool  consideration  to  these  objections,  and 
try  them  by  the  standard  of  the  law.  I  mean  the  law  as  it  was  before  the 
organization  of  this  Commission.  I  admit  that  since  then  a  great  revolution 
has  taken  place  in  the  law.  It  is  not  now  what  it  used  to  be.  All  our 
notions  of  public  right  and  public  wrong  have  suffered  a  complete  bouleverse- 
ment.  The  question  submitted  to  you  is  whether  the  persons  who  gave  these 
votes  were  '  duly  appointed.'  Duly  of  course  means  according  to  law. 
What  law?  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  acts  of  Congress 
passed  in  pursuance  thereof,  the  Constitution  of  South  Carolina  and  the 
authorized  acts  of  her  legislature  —  these  taken  all  together  constitute  the 
law  of  the  case  before  you.  By  these  laws  the  right,  duty,  and  power  of  ap 
pointing  electors  is  given  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina ;  that  is  to  say,  the 
citizens  of  the  state  qualified  to  vote  at  general  elections.  Who  are  they  ? 
By  the  Constitution  of  the  state,  in  order  to  qualify  them  as  voters,  they  must 


662  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

be  registered.     The  registry  of  a  native  citizen  is  a  sine  qua  non  to  his  right 
of  voting,  as  much  as  the  naturalization  of  a  foreigner." 

After  showing  that  the  legislature  never  passed  any  law  for  the  registra 
tion  of  voters,  and  that  no  registration  of  them  was  ever  made,  he  said  that  the 
object  and  purpose  of  such  omission  was  fraudulent  and  dishonest ;  for  the 
Legislature  as  well  as  the  executive  department  of  that  government  has  been 
in  the  hands  of  the  most  redemptionless  rogues  on  the  face  of  the  earth :  and 
that  whatever  may  have  been  the  motive,  nobody  could  doubt  that  the  legal 
effect  of  that  omission  was  to  make  the  election  illegal.    He  contended  that  the 
election  itself,  emancipated  from  all  law  and  all  authority,  was  no  better  than 
a  riot,  a  mob,  a  general  saturnalia,  in  which  the  soldiers  of  the  United  States 
Army  cut  the  principal  as  well  as  the  decentest  figure.     "  We  offer  to  prove  " 
said  the  eloquent  jurist  —  "  that  every  poll  in  Charleston  County,  where  they 
rushed  into  the  ballot-box  seven  thousand  majority,  was  in  possession  of  the 
soldiers.  A  government  whose  elections  are  controlled  by  military  force  can 
not  be  republican  in  form  or  substance.     For  this  I  cite  the  authority  of 
Luther  vs.  Borden,  if  perchance  the  old-time  law  has  yet  any  influence.     Do 
you  not  see  the  hideous  depth  of  national  degradation  into  which  you  will 
plunge  us  if  you  sanctify  this  mode  of  making  a  President?     Brush  up  your 
historical  memory  and  think  of  it  for  a  moment.    The  man  whom  you  elect  in 
this  way  is  as  purely  the  creature  of  the  military  power  as  Caligula  or  Domi- 
tian,  for  whom  the  pretorian  guards  controlled  the  hustings  and  counted  the 
votes.    But  then,  we  cannot  get  behind  the  returns,  forsooth  !    Not  we  !    You 
will  not  let  us.     We  cannot  get  behind  them.      No.     That  is  the  law,  of 
course.     We  may  struggle  for  justice  ;  we  may  cry  for  mercy  ;  we  may  go 
down  on  our  knees,  and  beg  and  woo  for  some  little   recognition   of  our 
rights  as  American  citizens ;  but  we  might  as  well  put  up  our  prayers  to 
Jupiter,  or  Mars,  as  bring  suit  in  the  court  where  Rhadamanthus  presides. 
There  is  not  a  god  on  Olympus  that  would  not  listen  to  us  with  more  favor 
than  we  shall  be  heard  by  our  adversaries. 

*  You  see  why  we  are  hopeless.  The  present  state  of  the  law  is  sadly 
against  us.  The  friends  of  honest  elections  and  honest  government  are  in 
deep  despair.  We  once  thought  that  the  verifying  power  of  the  two  houses 
of  Congress  ought  to  be  brought  always  into  requisition  for  the  purpose  of 
seeing  whether  the  thing  that  is  brought  here  is  a  forgery  and  a  fraud  on  the 
one  hand,  or  whether  it  is  a  genuine  and  true  certificate  on  the  other. 

"  But  while  we  cannot  ask  you  to  go  back  behind  this  certificate,  will  you 
just  please  to  go  to  it  —  only  to  it  —  not  step  behind.  If  you  do  you  will 
find  that  it  is  no  certificate  at  all  such  as  is  required  by  law.  The  electors 
must  vote  by  ballot,  and  they  are  required  to  be  on  oath  before  they  vote. 
That  certificate  does  not  show  that  either  of  those  requirements  was  met, 
and  where  a  party  is  exercising  a  special  authority  like  this  they  must  keep 
strictly  within  it,  and  you  are  not  to  presume  anything  except  what  appears 


JUDGE  BLACK'S   SCATHING  INVECTIVE.  663 

on  the  face  of  their  act  to  be  done.  This  great  nation  still  struggles  for 
justice  ;  a  million  majority  of  white  people  send  up  their  cry,  and  a  majority 
of  more  than  that  number  of  all  colors  demand  it.  But  we  cannot  com 
plain.  I  want  you  to  understand  that  we  do  not  complain.  Usually  it  is 
said  that  '  the  fowler  setteth  not  forth  his  net  in  sight  of  the  bird,*  but  this 
fowler  set  the  net  in  sight  of  the  birds  that  went  into  it.  It  is  largely  our 
own  fault  that  we  were  caught.  We  are  promised  —  and  I  hope  the  promise 
will  be  kept  —  that  we  shall  have  a  good  government,  fraudulent  though  it 
be ;  that  the  rights  of  the  states  shall  be  respected  and  individual  liberty  be 
protected. 

"  They  offer  us  everything  now.  They  denounce  negro  supremacy  and 
carpet-bag  thieves.  Their  pet  policy  for  the  South  is  to  be  abandoned. 
They  offer  us  everything  but  one  ;  but  on  that  subject  their  lips  are  closely 
sealed.  They  refuse  to  say  that  they  will  not  cheat  us  hereafter  in  the  elec 
tions.  If  they  would  only  agree  to  that ;  if  they  would  only  repent  of  their 
election  frauds  and  make  restitution  of  the  votes  they  have  stolen,  the  circle 
of  our  felicities  would  be  full.  If  this  thing  stands  accepted  and  the  law 
you  have  made  for  this  occasion  shall  be  the  law  for  all  occasions,  we  can 
never  expect  such  a  thing  as  an  honest  election  again.  If  you  want  to  know 
who  will  be  President  by  a  future  election  do  not  inquire  how  the  people  of 
the  states  are  going  to  vote.  You  need  only  to  know  what  kind  of  scoun 
drels  constitute  the  returning  boards  and  how  much  it  will  take  to  buy  them. 
But  I  think  that  even  that  will  end  some  day.  At  present  you  have  us  down 
and  under  your  feet.  Never  had  you  a  better  right  to  rejoice.  Well  may 
you  say,  '  We  have  made  a  covenant  with  death,  and  with  hell  are  we  at 
agreement ;  when  the  overflowing  scourge  shall  pass  through,  it  shall  not 
come  unto  us  :  for  we  have  made  lies  our  refuge,  and  under  falsehood  have 
we  hid  ourselves.'  But  nevertheless  wait  a  little  while.  The  waters  of  truth 
will  rise  gradually,  and  slowly  but  surely,  and  then  look  out  for  the  over 
flowing  scourge.  The  refuge  of  lies  shall  be  swept  away  and  the  hiding- 
place  of  falsehood  shall  be  uncovered.  This  mighty  and  puissant  nation 
will  yet  raise  herself  up  like  a  strong  man  after  sleep  and  shake  her  invinci 
ble  locks  in  a  fashion  you  little  think  of  now.  Wait,  retribution  will  come 
in  due  time.  Justice  travels  with  a  leaden  heel,  but  strikes  with  an  iron 
hand." 

Were  there  ever  more  burning,  blistering  words  before  such  an  insensate 
tribunal?  Whither  had  reason  fled,  if  not  to  brutish  beasts  bent  on  satisfy 
ing  their  lust  of  power?  This  grand  old  statesman  of  Pennsylvania,  who 
had  honored  the  nation  as  its  Secretary  of  State  and  his  commonwealth  as 
its  chief  justiciary,  was  driven  to  the  Book  of  Books,  "the  book  of  the 
avenging  Jehovah,"  to  voice  in  our  own  tough  Teutonic  tongue,  his  anath 
ema  maranatha  against  these  spoilers  of  our  elective  liberties  and  these 
abettors  of  every  crime  in  the  calendar.  Meanwhile  a  determination  to 


664  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

resist  by  all  parliamentary  means  the  consummation  of  the  conspiracy  was 
daily  growing  among  certain  elements  in  the  House.  Dilatory  motions, 
known  in  common  parlance  as  "  fillibustering,"  were  made  at  every  step 
of  the  count.  The  avowed  object  of  the  fillibusterers  was  to  prevent  the 
count  from  being  completed  by  the  4th  of  March.  In  that  case,  it  would 
be  the  duty  of  the  House  to  proceed,  by  states,  to  choose  a  President.  The 
choice  would,  of  course,  be  Mr.  Tilden. 

The  scenes  in  the  House  were  at  times  intensely  exciting.  The  country 
seemed  to  be  bordering  on  a  revolution  to  be  inaugurated  in  the  Hall  of  Rep 
resentatives.  Mr.  Speaker  Randall  was  almost  powerless  to  preserve  order. 
The  sound  of  his  gavel,  which  he  wielded  with  tremendous  energy,  was  lost 
in  the  general  din  and  uproarious  demands  for  recognition.  It  was  in  one  of 
these  exciting  episodes,  when  every  member  was  on  his  feet  angrily  and 
vociferously  shouting  "Mr.  Speaker!"  that  Mr.  Beebe,  of  New- York, 
sprang  upon  his  desk,  and  stood  upright,  in  wild  gesticulative  pantomime. 
Mr.  Speaker  Randall's  resolute  course  during  this  memorable  epoch  may 
have  saved  the  country  from  consequences  even  more  serious  than  a  fraudu 
lent  Presidency.  But  the  Rubicon  is  passed,  when  South  Carolina  is 
added  to  the  Republican  column.  The  fight  is  kept  up  hopelessly.  A 
stand  is  made  on  Oregon,  and  even  on  Vermont;  but  there  is  little  heart 
left.  The  contestants — and  among  them  is  the  author  —  feel  that  the  die 
is  cast.  By  a  curious  reversal  of  principle,  the  governor's  certificate,  so 
sacred  in  Louisiana,  loses  its  sanctity  in  Oregon.  There,  that  official  chances 
to  be  a  Democrat.  Mr.  Tilden  has  but  one  electoral  vote  to  gain,  beyond 
the  184  conceded  to  him,  to  assure  his  election.  That  all  essential  one 
vote  is  supplied  in  the  package  of  three  which  came  under  seal  of  the  gov 
ernor  of  far-off  Oregon.  Consistency,  with  its  precious  rulings  against 
going  back  of  the  returns,  requires  the  Commission  to  count  that  vote  for 
Mr.  Tilden,  not  inquiring  into  its  merits  or  its  demerits.  But  that  will 
not  answer.  It  would  defeat  the  conspiracy.  So  by  dexterous  juggling  and 
cunning  sophistry,  not  intelligible  to  plain  people,  it  is  ascertained  that  in 
Oregon  it  is  not  the  seal  of  governor,  but  that  of  the  secretary  of  state,  which 
gives  sanctity  to  the  electoral  returns.  And  so  Oregon  goes  with  the  rest. 
Was  there  ever  provocation  so  great  met  by  self-restraint  more  patriotic  ? 

The  4th  of  March  is  close  at  hand.  The  count  lacks  something  of  being 
completed.  The  cool  assurance  of  the  Republican  leaders  shows  that  they 
have  their  victim  in  the  toils.  This  does  not  mitigate  Democratic  exaspera 
tion.  But  aside  from  a  slender  protesting  minority  in  the  House,  there  is  a 
general  concurrence  that  the  count  must  be  finished.  Its  bitter  fruits  must 
be  accepted.  No  time  is  to  be  lost,  if  the  great  conspiracy  is  to  be  crowned 
with  success.  The  ist  of  March  is  here.  Wisconsin,  the  last  state  in  the 
list,  remains  to  be  counted.  Objection  is  made  on  the  part  of  the  Democrats. 
The  vote  of  Elector  Downs  is  challenged.  He  had  an  office  of  trust  and 


DIPLOMA  TS&STA  TESMEN 


SENATOR  FERRY  ANNOUNCES  THE  VOTE.  665 

profit.  He  was  a  pension  surgeon  under  the  United  States,  and  was,  there 
fore,  constitutionally  ineligible.  It  is  an  objection  raised  against  hope. 
The  House  sustains,  the  Senate  overrules.  Under  the  law  creating  the  Com 
mission  and  regulating  the  count,  this  Wisconsin  vote  is  counted  for  Hayes. 
But  this  is  not  done  without  a  protracted  struggle.  The  House  remains  in 
continuous  session  from  twelve  o'clock  noon  to  four  o'clock  the  next  morn 
ing.  It  is  then  prepared  to  notify  the  Senate  of  its  readiness  to  proceed  with 
the  count.  All  through  the  long  night  the  galleries  are  crowded.  The  writer 
recalls  the  intense  feeling,  amounting  to  agony,  among  members  and  spec 
tators.  The  all  absorbing  interest  is  manifested  by  an  unusual  hush  and  atten 
tion.  Dramatic  scenes  are  not  infrequent.  Friday,  March  2,  is  ushered  in. 
Joseph  S.  C.  Blackburn,  now  Senator,  was  then  a  member  from  Ken 
tucky, —  a  state  where  oratory  seems  to  be  indigenous  to  the  soil.  He  rises 
to  pronounce  a  diatribe  appropriate  to  the  act  about  being  completed. 
"Mr,  Speaker,"  said  the  successor  of  Henry  Clay,  "Mr.  Speaker,  the  end 
has  come.  There  is  no  longer  a  margin  for  argument,  and  manhood  spurns 
the  plea  of  mercy,  and  yet  there  is  a  fitness  in  the  hour  that  should  not  pass 
unheeded.  To-day  is  Friday.  Upon  that  day  the  Saviour  of  the  world 
suffered  crucifixion  between  two  thieves.  On  this  Friday  constitutional  gov 
ernment,  justice,  honesty,  fair  dealing,  manhood,  and  decency  suffer  cruci 
fixion  amid  thieves.  It  was  on  that  day  that  this  Presidential  fraud  re 
ceived  its  nomination  at  the  hands  of  the  Republican  party.  It  was  upon 
that  day  as  it  recurred,  that  every  determination  reached  by  the  blistered, 
perjured  miscreants  that  constitute  the  majority  of  that  Commission  has 
been  promulgated  to  the  country.  It  is  on  that  day  that  you  propose  to 
consummate  your  iniquity  and  foist  into  a  place  of  power  him  whom  the 
people  of  the,  land  have  spurned,  scorned,  and  rejected  at  the  polls.  If  it 
must  be,  it  is  well  that  it  should  occur  here  and  now ;  but  it  is  well,  also, 
that  before  the  day  is  finished  the  truth  should  be  vindicated  and  the  record 
should  show  upon  whom  the  responsibilities  rest." 

The  hands  of  the  clock  point  grimly  to  four  o'clock  and  five  minutes 
when,  on  the  morning  of  March  2,  1877,  the  door-keeper  announces  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  That  body  enters  the  hall.  It  is  headed  by  its 
President  pro  tempore,  and  accompanied  by  its  Sergeant-at-Arms,  and  door 
keeper.  The  action  of  each  house  on  the  objection  to  the  Wisconsin  certifi 
cate  is  reported.  President  Ferry  says:  "  The  two  houses  not  having  con 
curred  in  the  affirmative  vote  to  reject,  the  vote  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
will  now  be  counted."  "  Tellers,  announce  the  vote  of  the  State  of  Wiscon 
sin."  This  is  done.  He  proceeds  :  "  This  concludes  the  count  of  the  thirty- 
eight  states  of  the  Union."  "  The  tellers  will  now  ascertain  and  deliver  the 
result  to  the  President  of  the  Senate."  "  In  announcing  the  final  result  of  the 
electoral  vote,"  added  President  Ferry  by  way  of  caution,  conscious  of  the 
tension  of  the  popular  mind,  "the  Chair  trusts  that  all  present,  whether  on 


666  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

the  floor  or  in  the  galleries,  will  refrain  from  all  demonstrations  whatever  ;  that 
nothing  shall  transpire  on  this  occasion  to  mar  the  dignity  and  moderation 
which  have  characterized  these  proceedings,  in  the  main  so  reputable  to  the 
American  people,  and  worthy  of  the  respect  of  the  world."  The  request  is 
observed.  In  five  minutes  from  the  time  of  entering  the  hall,  the  declaration 
is  pronounced  that  Hayes  and  Wheeler  have  been  elected  President  and  Vice- 
President.  The  Senate  now  files  out  of  the  hall.  One  minute  later,  the 
House  refuses  Mr.  Atkins'  request  to  "  take  up  the  army  appropriation  bill." 
It  adjourns  and  the  weary  crowds  of  nocturnal  watchers  wend  their  weary  way 
in  the  early  dawn  of  that  March  morning  homeward.  The  stars  and  stripes, 
which  for  thirty  days  had  floated  uninterruptedly  over  the  Capitol,  denoting  a 
continuous  session,  are  appropriately  lowered. 

Then  for  the  first  time  in  our  history  sprang  into  existence,  new  and 
peculiar  relations  in  our  polity.  They  are  epitomized  in  two  Latin  phrases 
—  de  facto  and  de  jure.  These  terms  were  then  more  familiar  to  other 
nations  than  to  us.  Was  it  not  Daniel  Webster  who,  in  speaking  of  the 
Great  Charter,  said,  "  though  it  was  written  in  a  dead  language,  it  was  vital 
with  liberty?  "  De  facto  and  de  jure,  discordant  as  they  seem  in  sound  and 
sense,  should  be  one ;  and  both  should  be  concordant  with  freedom.  The 
genius  of  good  government  is  in  making  them  interchangeable.  By  melting 
fact  into  right,  the  actual  into  the  ideal,  Practice  walks  hand  in  hand  with 
Justice.  It  is  then  that  we  have  Utopia.  It  is  then  that  we  have 
the  ne  plus  ultra  of  our  political  hopes.  It  is  then  that  fact  is  founded 
upon  undimmed  and  unchangeable  relations.  It  is  then  that  both  are 
eternal.  Right  cannot  move  except  in  harmony  with  its  omniscient  Au 
thor.  Facts  isolated  may  be  transient,  temporary  and  ill-omened.  The 
shifting,  treacherous  waves  symbolize  them,  but  beneath  repose  the  everlast 
ing  deeps  of  Right.  What  do  we  mean  by  de  jure  and  de  facto?  De  jure 
means  by  right,  by  justice,  or  by  law,  as  distinguished  from  that  which  is 
existent,  irregularly,  and  temporarily.  De  facto,  as  the  word  signifies,  is 
something  made  — factum.  We  speak  of  something  manufactured,  like  a 
threshing  machine,  or  an  electoral  return,  when  distinguished  from  that 
which  is  essential.  In  one  case,  the  man  who  uses  the  machine  without  the 
patent  right  is  no  less  a  trespasser  than  the  one  who  holds  an  office  upon  a 
false,  manufactured  return,  made  to  order.  It  is  still  believed  by  more  than 
one-half  of  our  people  that  the  fact  accomplished  in  the  formal  inauguration  of 
a  de  facto  President,  and  in  the  repression  of  the  popular  choice,  was  an  out 
rageous  wrong.  All  nations  have  an  abstract  right  to  be  free.  But  the  div 
ine  order  which  establishes  this  right  is  almost  universally  violated.  Few 
nations  and  few  men  are  de  facto  free.  This  is  because  of  ignorance, 
violence,  selfishness,  treachery,  and  tyranny.  During  our  Civil  War,  the 
Southern  States,  when  out  of  their  Federal  relation  to  the  Constitution,  were 
regarded  by  all  as  de  facto  regular  states,  if  not  by  all,  as  de  jure  states. 


DECREE  OF  THE  ELECTORAL  COMMISSION.  667 

The  states  preserved  their  statehood,  and  even  when  irregular  governments 
subvened,  the  temporary  local  governments  remained.  Why?  For  human 
convenience  and  necessity  ;  because  worse  might  or  would  have  happened  : 
for  must  not  courts  run,  debts  be  collected,  and  prisoners  be  tried,  acquitted  or 
convicted,  and  murderers  hanged?  Must  not  judgments  be  entered,  property 
transfers  executed,  marriages  performed,  production  go  on,  that  subsistence 
may  be  had,  and  all  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  a  quasi  government, 
as  the  agent  of  society,  be  exercised,  if  only  temporarily?  He  who  would 
propose  to  crush  such  a  wise  arrangement,  or  to  upturn  such  results  would 
bastardize  the  issue  of  marriages,  unsettle  honest  titles,  and  declare  the 
hanging  of  the  murderer  to  be  itself  murder.  He  would  be  the  enemy  of 
mankind.  The  rule  de  facto  in  such  stress,  is,  therefore,  justifiable.  It  is 
justified  by  publicists  and  courts,  by  reason  and  right ;  for  when  the  inter 
ests  of  the  people  —  of  the  young  and  innocent,  especially,  and  of  society 
generally  —  are  jeopardized  by  human  passion  and  selfishness,  a  government 
of  some  kind  is  necessary  to  their  defense  and  protection. 

It  frequently  occurs,  as  in  the  case  of  Don  Carlos,  in  Spain,  or  as  in 
the  case  of  the  rival  claimants  for  the  French  crown,  that  divers  dynasties 
make  contest.  Bewildered  subjects  are  expected  to  fight  under  the  ensign 
of  one  or  the  other,  all  swearing,  like  good  knights,  to  avouch  the  qual 
ity  of  the  title  which  appears  to  them.  For  years  England  divided  under  the 
emblem  of  the  Rose ;  and  each  adherent  was  ready,  to  the  death,  to  contend 
for  the  peculiar  aroma,  hue,  and  beauty  of  his  favorite.  Such  contests  arise 
from  the  nature  of  human  society  and  the  self-preferences  of  the  few,  com 
peting  against  each  other.  They  depend,  as  in  France,  upon  the  Salique 
law,  which  forbade  women  the  throne  ;  or,  later,  upon  the  selfish  caprices  of 
the  citizen,  or  a  coup  d'etat  by  an  Emperor.  In  America,  peace  depended 
on  a  fateful  day  upon  the  submission  of  the  Democratic  party  to  the  decree 
of  an  Electoral  Commission  of  doubtful  legality,  based  on  the  frauds  of  a 
notoriously  corrupt  and  unconstitutional  returning  board. 

In  so  far  as  the  question  of  the  legitimacy  of  the  acting  Executive, 
Rutherford  B.  Hayes,  was  concerned,  it  had  no  foreign  or  hereditary  aspect. 
All  the  nations,  by  the  jus  gentium,  recognized  him  ;  and,  for  certain  pur 
poses,  all  the  people  of  this  country  also.  He  held  the  emblems  and  reins  of 
power.  Congress  had  to  hold  its  co-ordinate  relations  with  him,  or  with  no 
one.  No  armed  or  other  conflict  pretended  to  test  his  title.  There  was  no 
attempt  to  do  so.  Was  there  any  constitutional  or  other  provision,  by  quo 
ivarranto  or  otherwise,  to  test  it?  It  was  doubted  whether  any  constitu 
tional  power  existed  to  use  that  writ,  even  if  a  law  for  it  were  passed.  It 
was  an  anomalous  hiatus.  Adequate  provision  is  made  in  many  of  the 
states  to  test  the  title  of  their  chief  executive.  In  Ohio  and  New-York  a 
quo  tvarranto  suit  may  be  instituted  by  the  competing  candidate,  and  a 
judgment  ousting  the  incumbent  may  be  extended  to  the  seating  of  his  com- 


668  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

petitor.  In  Wisconsin,  the  supreme  court,  through  Chief  Justice  Whiton  (4 
Wis.,  792),  declared  that  the  election,  and  not  the  canvass,  of  the  votes  de 
termined  the  right  to  office.  The  Court  went  behind  the  canvass,  and,  on 
the  just  principle,  ubi  jus,  ibi  remedium,  took  jurisdiction  to  declare  the 
respondent  chosen.  If  remedy  be  found  for  a  wrong  to  one  of  the  mem 
bers  of  our  Union,  why  not  for  a  wrong  to  the  whole  body  ?  The  protest 
of  the  popular  branch  of  Congress  remains.  That  body,  by  resolution, 
declared  that  the  State  of  Florida  had  given  its  votes  for  the  Democratic 
candidates.  On  the  3d  of  March,  in  a  most  solemn  resolution,  offered  by 
Mr.  Knott,  of  Kentucky,  it  declared,  by  146  to  82,  that  they  were  duly 
elected.  In  spite,  therefore,  of  the  action  of  the  Electoral  Commission  and 
the  farce  of  its  confirmation  by  the  Senate,  the  defeat  of  the  Presidential 
succession,  at  least  de  jure,  was  of  such  gravity  that  no  lapse  of  time  can 
suppress,  no  sneer  belittle,  and  no  compliance  with  Democratic  policy  ob 
literate  the  criminality  of  those  who  plotted  for  it.  How  far  may  discussion 
of  that  crime  be  opened  for  historic  reference  ?  How  many  anodynes  may 
be  given  to  drug  it  to  sleep  ?  Is  it  now  too  late  to  expose  wrong,  even  if 
it  cannot  be  repaired  or  punished  ?  Time  cannot  so  veneer  it  as  to  make  it 
right.  The  question  will  recur  :  "  Had  not  the  Democrats  the  true  majority 
in  the  Electoral  College  ?  "  Is  it  argued,  that  by  the  mode  of  its  ascertain 
ment —  by  the  Electoral  Commission  —  this  question  was  decided  authori 
tatively  ?  In  answer,  let  it  for  a  moment  be  assumed  that  the  Commission 
was  authorized  by  the  Constitution.  However  doubtful  the  right  of  Con 
gress  to  delegate  to  such  a  body  the  duty  delegated  to  itself;  however  uni 
form  the  practice  and  certain  the  duty,  that  each  house  held  the  negative  on 
the  count  of  any  state ;  however  unwise  to  give  the  power  away  to  a  third 
body,  even  if  the  power  to  devolve  it  existed  ;  nevertheless  the  fact  remains, 
that  the  question  of  who  was  or  was  not  the  choice  of  the  Electoral  College 
was  never  decided !  The  truth  was  never  declared,  nor  pretended  to  be 
declared.  It  was  ignored  —  deliberately  and  intentionally.  It  was  avoided. 
That  Commission  ostensibly  passed  only  upon  certain  papers  furnished  them 
by  the  President  of  the  Senate.  These  papers  were  merely  prima  facie 
writings  of  those  interested  in  the  result  certified.  The  Commission  did  not 
entertain  the  merits.  It  did  not  allow  the  impeachment  of  falsehood,  nor 
the  rebuttal  of  concocted  certificates.  To  have  done  so  would  have  conferred 
right  and  repressed  wrong.  It  would  have  executed  the  will  of  the  States 
and  the  People  —  the  summa  jura  imperil  !  .  That  will  was  not  executed, 
and  hence  the  relations  de  facto  and  de  jure  hung  in  ominous  unrest  for 
four  years  over  the  land. 


f 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 


PRESIDENT  HAYES'  ADMINISTRATION  AND  ITS  RESULTS. 

MR.  HAYES*  QUALITIES  —  HIS  FORMER  POPULARITY  —  QUESTIONS  DURING  HIS 
ADMINISTRATION  —  SILVER  AND  GOLD  —  RESUMPTION  OF  SPECIE  PAY 
MENTS—RESUMPTION  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  STATE  GOVERNMENT  IN  THE 
SOUTH  —  REPEAL  OF  THE  BANKRUPTCY  ACT  — PARTY  PLATFORMS  —  GENERAL 
GRANT  —  GENERAL  HANCOCK,  AS  SOLDIER  AND  CIVILIAN  — GARFIELD  SUC 
CEEDS  HAYES  — HIS  CAREER  — HIS  INAUGURATION  —  HIS  LEADER  IN  THE 
CABINET,  ELAINE  — THE  ASSASSINATION  OF  PRESIDENT  GARFIELD— AR 
THUR'S  ACCESSION  — THE  NOTABLE  EVENT  OF  HIS  ADMINISTRATION  — 
PENDLETON'S  CIVIL  SERVICE  REFORM  BILL. 

THE  result  of  the  electoral  count  of  1877  did  not  dishearten  the 
Democratic  people  and  party.  It  stimulated  them  to  renewed  exer 
tion.  The  administration  of  Rutherford  B.  Hayes,  as  has  been 
shown,  was  that  of  a  de  facto  Executive.  As  such  he  was  the 
nineteenth  President  of  the  United  States.  He  was  lacking  in  certain  ele 
ments  of  power.  He  was  a  man  of  amiable  and  complaisant  disposition. 
He  and  the  author  of  this  book,  practiced  law  together,  at  Cincinnati,  in 
their  early  days.  He  won  a  fair  reputation  as  a  lawyer  ;  but  he  won  more 
reputation  in  the  Civil  War,  by  honorable  service  in  the  Union  cause.  He 
became  a  major-general.  He  was  elected  to  Congress  in  1864,  while  in  the 
field.  It  was  his  success  in  contesting  the  gubernatorial  chair  with  Allen 
G.  Thurman  in  1869,  and  his  re-election  in  1875,  that  gave  him  the  good  or 
the  ill  fortune  of  the  nomination  for  the  Presidency  at  Cincinnati,  in  1876. 
His  inaugural  utterances  were  suave  and  plausible  ;  but  they  did  not  concili 
ate  the  vindictive  feeling  which  his  peculiar  accession  to  power  occasioned. 
His  best  purposes  were  nullified.  Had  he  refused  to  accept  the  office  of 
President  in  1877,  in  all  probability  he  would  have  been  the  Executive  for 
eight  years  after  1880.  The  era  of  good  feeling  did  not  come  in  his  admin 
istration,  because  of  the  questionable  character  of  his  credentials.  He  had 
able  men  in  his  cabinet.  Such  men  as  Evarts,  Sherman,  McCrary,  Thomp- 


670  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

son,  Schurz,  Devens,  and  Key  are  rarely  matched  for  executive  skill  and  art. 
During  his  term  there  was  much  trouble  connected  with  the  labor  move 
ments. 

In  1877,  the  agitation  for  the  remonetization  of  silver  disturbed  the  finances 
of  the  country.  By  the  first  coinage  regulations  the  standard  unit  of  value 
•was  the  American  silver  dollar.  The  act  of  April  2,  1792,  which  established 
the  Mint,  designated  the  coins  of  the  United  States.  The  gold  coins  were 
"Eagles,"  "Half  Eagles,"  and  "Quarter  Eagles."  The  silver  coins  were 
"  Dollars  or  Units," —  each  to  be  of  the  value  of  a  Spanish  "  milled  dollar" 
(the  same  that  was  then  current),  and  to  contain  371  1-4  grains  of  pure  sil 
ver  or  416  grains  of  standard  silver;  "  Half  Dollars,"  of  half  the  value  of 
the  dollar  or  unit ;  "  Quarter  Dollars,"  of  one-fourth  the  value  of  the  dollar 
or  unit.  There  were  "  Dimes  "  and  "  Half  Dimes  "  of  proportional  value, 
and  "Cents"  and  "Half  Cents."  The  eagles  were  "each  to  be  of  the 
value  of  ten  dollars  or  units,"  and  to  contain  247  1-2  grains  of  pure  or  270 
grains  of  standard  gold.  The  half  and  quarter  eagles  were  to  be  of  propor 
tional  weight  and  value.  Coinage  was  free,  and  all  gold  and  silver  coins  of 
these  denominations  were  declared  to  be  "  a  lawful  tender  in  all  payments 
whatsoever."  The  same  act  prescribed  that  "  the  money  of  account  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  expressed  in  dollars  or  units,  dimes  or  tenths,  cents  or 
hundredths,  and  mills  or  thousands." 

The  standard  for  all  gold  coins  of  the  United  States  was  fixed  by  this 
act ;  eleven  parts  in  twelve  of  the  entire  weight  of  each  coin  were  to  consist 
of  pure  gold,  and  the  twelfth  part  of  alloy,  the  alloy  to  be  of  silver  and  cop 
per  in  convenient  proportions,  not  exceeding  one-half  silver.  The  standard 
fixed  for  all  silver  coins  was  1485  parts  fine  (pure)  silver,  to  179  parts  alloy, 
the  latter  to  be  wholly  of  copper.  The  proportional  value  of  gold  to  silver 
in  all  United  States  coins  was  fixed  at  fifteen  to  one,  according  to  quantity  in 
weight,  of  pure  gold  or  pure  silver ;  that  is  to  say,  every  fifteen  pounds  of 
pure  silver  was  to  be  of  equal  value  in  all  payments  with  one  pound  weight 
of  pure  gold,  and  so  in  proportion  as  to  any  greater  or  less  quantities  of  the 
respective  metals. 

By  the  act  of  Jan.  18,  1837,  tne  standard  for  both  gold  and  silver  coins 
was  thereafter  to  be  nine  hundred  parts  of  a  thousand  of  pure  metal,  and  one 
hundred  of  alloy,  the  alloy  to  be  the  same  as  that  previously  prescribed. 
The  weight  of  the  silver  dollar  was  fixed  at  412  1-2  grains,  and  that  of  the 
gold  eagle  at  258  grains.  The  smaller  denominations  were  to  be  of  pro 
portional  weights,  and  the  gold  and  silver  coins  issued  under  both  acts  were 
made  a  legal  tender  at  their  nominal  value  for  the  payment  of  all  debts. 
This  act  provided  for  the  coinage  of  gold  double  eagles  and  gold  dollars 
of  proportional  weights,  and  it  made  these  new  coins  also  a  legal  tender. 
By  the  act  of  Feb.  21,  1853,  the  weight  of  the  silver  half  dollar  was  reduced 
to  192  grains,  and  that  of  the  quarter  dollar,  dime,  and  half  dime,  pro- 


THE  STANDARD  SILVER  DOLLAR.  671 

portionally  ;  and  the  legal  tender  quality  of  these  coins  was  limited  to  sums 
not  exceeding  five  dollars. 

By  the  "  coinage  act  of  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy-three,"  — which 
repealed  all  previous  acts  in  relation  to  the  mint  and  coinage  that  were  incon 
sistent  with  its  provisions  —  the  standard  silver  dollar  was  omitted  from  the 
coinage  of  the  United  States.  The  silver  coins  authorized  in  this  act,  were : 
the  "trade  dollar,"  the  half  dollar,  quarter  dollar,  and  dime.  The  weight 
of  the  "  trade  dollar"  was  fixed  at  420  grains,  troy,  of  the  half  dollar  at 
twelve  and  one-half  grammes,  of  the  quarter  dollar  at  six  and  one-fourth 
grammes,  and  of  the  dime  at  one-fifth  of  the  half  dollar.  The  standard  for 
both  gold  and  silver  coins  was  not  changed,  except  that  the  alloy  for  the  gold 
coin  might  be  wholly  of  copper,  or  have  one  tenth  part  of  it  silver.  The 
weight  of  the  gold  coins  was  fixed  at, — 516  grains  for  the  double  eagle,  258 
grains  for  the  eagle,  129  grains  for  the  half-eagle,  seventy-seven  and  four- 
tenths  for  the  three  dollar  piece,  sixty-four  and  one-half  grains  for  the  quar 
ter  eagle,  and  twenty-five  and  eight-tenths  for  the  gold  dollar.  These  gold 
and  silver  coins,  and  none  other,  were  thereafter  to  be  issued ;  and,  except 
the  trade  dollar,  and  silver  for  sums  of  five  dollars,  gold  was  the  only  coin 
age  that  had  a  legal  tender  quality  affixed  to  it  by  law,  under  this  act.  By 
the  joint  resolution,  approved  July  22,  1876,  the  legal  tender  quality  of  the 
"  trade  dollar"  was  abolished,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was 
authorized  to  limit  its  coinage  "to  such  an  amount  as  he  may  deem  suffici 
ent  to  meet  the  export  demand  for  the  same." 

The  effect  of  these  acts  was  to  make  the  gold  dollar,  of  25.8  grains,  the 
single  standard  unit  of  value  in  this  country.  Other  fiscal  measures  came 
into  operation  during  Hayes'  administration.  The  author,  by  the  grace  of 
Mr.  Speaker  Kerr,  was  chairman  of  the  Banking  and  Currency  committee. 
It  was  a  perilous  post  for  one  not  accomplished  in  fiscal  philosophy  by  bank 
ing  experience.  The  chief  among  these  measures  was  that  passed  in  Jan 
uary,  1875.  It  was  known  as  the  Resumption  act.  It  declared  that  on  the 
ist  of  January,  1879,  *ne  government  should  begin  to  redeem  its  outstand 
ing  legal-tender  notes  in  coin.  The  question  then  arose  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  "  coin."  Did  it  mean  gold  and  silver,  or  gold  only?  Then  came 
the  inquisition  as  to  the  legislation  of  1873  and  1876  by  which  the  privilege 
of  paying  debts  in  silver  had  been  taken  away.  The  gold  dollar  seemed 
paramount.  Remonetization  of  silver  became  a  shibboleth  and  an  issue. 
Speculation  had  resulted  after  the  Resumption  act  in  1875.  It  seemed  as  if 
the  debtor  class  had  entered  upon  hardship.  Panics  became  imminent. 
Ruin  stared  the  debtor  in  the  face.  The  Bankruptcy  act  was  repealed  in 
1878  ;  but  as  resumption  came  near,  confidence  began  to  be  restored.  Not 
withstanding  all  prophecies  to  the  contrary,  better  times  supervened. 

In  1878,  Congress  passed  an  act  for  the  restoration  of  the  legal  quality  of 
the  old  silver  dollar.  By  the  act  of  Feb.  28,  1878,  it  again  became  lawful 


672  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

to  coin  "  silver  dollars  "  of  the  weight  of  412  1-2  grains  Troy  "  of  standard 
silver,  as  provided  in  the  act  of  Jan.  18,  1837,"  w*tn  tne  devices  and  super 
scriptions  prescribed  by  that  act.  This  act  of  1878  provided  that  the  new 
silver  dollar,  together  with  all  silver  dollars  theretofore  coined  by  the  United 
States  of  like  weight  and  fineness,  should  be  a  legal  tender  at  their  nominal 
value  "  for  all  debts  and  dues  public  and  private  except  where  otherwise  ex 
pressly  stipulated  in  the  contract.  A  subsequent  act  abolished  the  coinage 
of  the  twenty-five  cent  silver  piece. 

Coinage  of  the  silver  dollar  was  begun  at  the  mints  under  the  act  of  1878, 
at  the  rate  of  not  less  than  two  millions  a  month.  This  law  was  passed  over 
Mr.  Hayes'  veto.  Both  parties  voted  for  it.  The  old  double  standard  was 
restored.  On  the  ist  of  January,  1879,  the  resumption  of  specie  payment 
was  formally  accomplished.  Monetary  affairs  began  to  settle  down  steadily. 
Legitimate  business  became  possible  on  the  old  steady  monetary  unit.  The 
most  notable  events  of  Mr.  Hayes'  administration  were  the  resumption  of 
specie  payments,  and  the  resumption  of  constitutional  state  government  in 
Louisiana,  South  Carolina,  and  other  southern  states.  As  to  the  latter 
event,  it  came  as  a  necessary  incident  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  attend 
ing  the  proceedings  for  counting  him  in  as  the  de  facto  President. 

Again  the  Presidential  election  year  rolled  around.  The  year  1880  saw 
the  Republicans  struggling  at  Chicago  to  select  a  candidate  who  could  carry 
the  country.  They  were  divided  closely,  between  General  Grant  and  Mr. 
Elaine. 

The  author  has  forborne  to  treat  of  the  wonderful  career  of  General 
Grant  in  the  period  covered  by  this  volume.  The  forthcoming  Memoirs, 
written  under  such  pathetic  circumstances,  in  the  valley  and  shadow  of 
death,  can  alone  do  justice  to  the  motives  and  actions  of  that  greatest  gen 
eral  of  modern  times,  who  conquered  as  much  by  his  generosity  as  by  the 
sword.  It  was  the  proudest  moment  of  the  author's  life  when  he  exer- 
ised  the  privilege  of  voting  for  the  restoration  of  General  Grant  to  that 
place  in  the  army  which  so  many  of  his  best  friends  regretted  that  he  had 
ever  left  to  enter  the  less  congenial  field  of  political  strife.  He  was  twice 
called  to  the  Presidential  office.  The  issues  of  that  period  were  bitter,  and 
passion  was  rife  between  the  parties.  The  soldier-president,  with  all  his 
ability  to  command,  and  patriotic  desire  for  "  Peace,"  found  a  spirit  of 
turbulence  and  defamation  in  the  ranks  of  his  own  party  too  great  for  even 
his  genius  to  quell.  It  became  his  duty,  as  president,  to  enforce  laws  against 
his  countrymen  that  were  utterly  inconsistent  with  his  own  chivalrous  and 
generous  policy  as  a  victorious  general.  The  Democratic  leaders  too  often 
forgot  this  in  the  heat  of  debate,  and  in  their  vigorous  denunciation  of 
bayonet  rule  in  the  South.  But  it  remained  with  those  of  his  own  house 
hold  of  faith, —  those  upon  whom  he  had  heaped  honors, —  to  seek  by  dark 
and  devious  ways  to  malign  and  defame  his  personal  honor.  General 


GENERAL  ULYSSES  S.  GRANT.  673 

Grant  has  outlived  all  such  mean  detractions,  and  their  authors  have  sunk 
into  the  obscurity  to  which  patriotic  indignation  and  public  opinion  have 
consigned  them.  Modest  as  a  man,  great  as  a  general,  noble  as  a  patriot, 
General  Grant  has  a  place  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen  which  hate,  nor 
malice,  nor  envy  can  ever  reach.  His  name  will  go  down  to  all  time  asso 
ciated  with  that  of  Washington  and  Lincoln,  as  the  defender  of  American 
liberty  and  preserver  of  the  Union.  It  is  a  matter  to  be  regretted,  in  the 
author's  estimation,  that  General  Grant's  name  was  allowed  to  be  presented 
at  the  Chicago  Convention  of  1880.  The  author  feels  assured  that  it  was 
not  because  of  a  selfish  ambition  on  the  General's  part  that  he  permitted  his 
friends  to  ask  for  a  third  nomination  for  the  Presidency.  If  he  felt  that  he 
needed  a  vindication  from  charges  that  were  dishonorable,  he  needed  it  not, 
for  they  were  false.  If  he  felt  that  he  would  like  an  opportunity  to  correct 
some  mistakes  of  his  former  administration,  he  needed  it  not,  for  no  man, 
however  great,  is  above  making  mistakes.  Only  a  precedent  which  has 
been  fixed  for  all  time  prevented  his  nomination  and  election  for  a  "  third 
term  "  of  the  Presidency.  This  inviolable  precedent  was  the  sunken  ditch 
into  which  "the  old  guard"  charged  in  unfaltering  devotion  to  a  chieftain 
who  never  knew  surrender.  A  more  gallant  contest  was  never  fought  in  any 
convention  in  our  political  history  than  that  in  which  Blaine  and  Conkling 
were  the  leaders  of  the  rival  hosts.  It  would  be  presumption  on  the  part  of 
the  author  of  the  THREE  DECADES  to  attempt  a  review  of  General  Grant's 
military  career,  or  to  discuss  his  motives  and  actions  as  a  statesman  and 
private  citizen.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  modesty  and  greatness  of  soul, 
noble  generosity,  and  pure  disinterestedness,  readiness,  frankness,  and  the 
best  impulses  of  patriotic  devotion  in  all  spheres  of  action  and  life,  have  ever 
been  the  characteristics  of  Gen.  Ulysses  S.  Grant.  His  name  and  fame  will 
grow  in  splendor  with  the  generations  that  are  to  come.  In  this  hour  of  his 
affliction,  a  universal  sympathy  draws  the  hearts  of  his  sorrowing  country 
men  around  his  dying  couch  into  a  nearer  and  better  Union.  What  a  solace 
this  knowledge  must  give  to  his  departing  days !  How  small  the  glory  of 
martial  or  executive  honors,  compared  with  this  crowning  bliss  ! 

The  two  grand  divisions  at  Chicago  were  finally  reconciled  upon  James 
A.  Garfield,  of  Ohio,  who  was  one  of  the  strongest  and  most  distinguished 
men  of  his  party.  He  had  won  fame  in  the  field,  the  forum,  and  upon  the 
sacred  rostrum,  and  was  deservedly  popular.  The  congressional  elections  of 
1878  had  been  adverse  to  the  Republicans.  But  the  census  year  was  one  of 
bounteous  harvests  and  great  prosperity  ;  therefore  the  latter  party  appealed  to 
business  interests  "  to  prevent  a  change  of  policy.  The  Republican  National 
Convention  was  held  on  the  2d  of  June.  The  platform  was  elaborate.  It 
was  a  code  of  memories,  if  such  a  stately  reminiscence  of  party  events  can 
be  called  a  code.  It  placed  high  above  state  rights,  the  doctrine  of  Nation- 


674        THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

ality.  It  made  "  protection'*  dominant.  It  cleverly  avoided  the  question  of 
finance.  It  arraigned  the  Democratic  party.  With  James  A.  Garfield  was 
associated  Chester  A.  Arthur  of  New- York,  upon  the  ticket.  The  ticket 
commanded  talent  and  means.  It  had  a  terrible  ordeal,  but  it  succeeded. 

Upon  the  22d  of  June,  the  Democratic  National  Convention  convened  at 
Cincinnati.  Its  platform  re-stated  the  old  philosophy  of  the  party,  with  its 
doctrines  and  traditions.  It  opposed  the  tendency  of  the  Republican  party 
to  centralize  government.  Its  metallic  plank  had  the  right  ring.  It  advo 
cated  a  tariff  for  revenue  only.  It  held  aloft  the  banner  of  a  free  vote.  It 
gave  a  splendid  encomium  to  Samuel  J.  Tilden.  It  had  no  equivocal  state 
ment  as  to  free  ships.  It  pointed  to  the  acts  of  the  Forty-sixth  Congress  as 
a  superb  illustration  of  a  Democratic  triumph.  Upon  this  platform  were 
placed  Gen.  Winfield  Scott  Hancock,  of  Pennslyvania,  for  President,  and  for 
Vice-President,  William  H.  English,  of  Indiana. 

There  was  a  "Greenback"  nomination  of  Gen.  James  B.  Weaver,  of 
Iowa,  with  a  platform  of  principles  which  had  many  admirable  anti-monop 
olistic  features.  This  platform  had  also  many  popular  appeals  to  a  public 
sense  of  justice  which  were  all  the  greater  in  emphasis,  because  of  the  lack 
of  popular  appreciation  of  their  necessity.  But  the  contest  was  not  tripartite. 
It  was  a  duel  between  the  two  great  parties.  It  was  the  solid  South  against 
an  almost  solid  North  with  the  inevitable  result.  Some  of  the  ablest  leaders 
of  the  Democratic  party,  including  such  men  as  Governor  Seymour,  addressed 
the  people  in  favor  of  General  Hancock  and  his  civil  record,  and  against 
the  doctrines  of  General  Garfield's  letter  of  acceptance  and  the  Republican 
platform.  It  was  something  magnificent  to  proclaim — that  record  of  General 
Hancock  as  a  civil  governor,  along  with  his  record  as  a  soldier.  As  a  tem 
porary  governor  in  the  southwest  after  the  war,  he  was  beyond  comparison 
for  civic  ability.  He  based  his  politics  upon  the  teachings  and  purposes  of 
the  Constitution.  He  had  learned  lessons  in  statesmanship  in  an  atmosphere 
untarnished  by  personal  ambition.  He  was  as  far  above  the  scandals  which 
tarnished  so  many  brilliant  careers,  as  he  was  above  the  grasping  designs  of 
the  satrap.  He  had  fought  on  many  battle-fields.  At  Gettysburg  with  rare 
and  striking  bravery,  he  had  added  to  the  glory  of  his  effulgent  career.  But 
it  was  what  he  did  in  Louisiana  and  Texas  that  quickened  every  heart  with 
the  impulses  of  freedom  ;  for,  upon  reviewing  the  history  of  his  difficulties  in 
governing  those  states  after  the  war,  all  lovers  of  liberty  considered  that  he 
should  wear  a  civic  crown  to  immortalize  his  sterling  -worth.  When  armed 
with  unrestrained  military  power,  he  was  animated  with  the  grand  abnega 
tion  of  the  best  men  of  all  republics.  He  copied  the  splendid  deeds  of 
Washington  and  Jackson.  He  wrote,  thus  inspired,  these  patriotic  and  glori 
ous  words  :  — 

"  If  called  to  the  Presidency,  I  should  deem  it  my  duty  to  resist,  with  all 
my  power,  any  attempt  to  impair  or  invade  the  full  force  and  effect  of  the 


CA 

THE  ASSASSINATION  OF  PRESIDENT  GARFIELD.  675 

Constitution,  which  in  every  article,  section,  and  amendment  is  the  para 
mount  law  of  the  land." 

Was  not  such  a  man  fit  to  exercise  the  authority  to  which  he  bowed  ? 
Had  he  not  proved  his  devotion  to  his  country  upon  the  battle-field  ?  Had 
he  not  proved  that  he  was  worthy  of  the  nomination,  and  of  an  election,  too, 
which  all  thought  would  be  accomplished  in  that  fall  of  1880?  The  election 
disappointed  every  Democrat.  It  is  thought  by  some  that  General  Hancock 
lost  his  election  by  tampering  with  the  tariff  thought  of  the  people  in  some 
inconsiderate  and  local  allusions.  It  is  thought  by  others  that  the  Republi 
cans  carried  the  election  by  the  corrupt  use  of  money.  Whatever  put  in  peril 
the  ascendency  of  the  Democratic  party,  the  election  resulted  in  the  choice 
of  Garfield  and  Arthur.  These  candidates  received  214  electoral  votes,  in 
cluding  all  the  votes  of  the  Northern  States,  except  those  of  New  Jersey  and 
Nevada,  and  four  out  of  the  five  votes  of  California.  Only  155  votes,  in 
cluding  those  of  all  the  Southern  States,  were  given  for  Hancock  and  Eng 
lish.  The  aggregate  of  the  vote  for  General  Weaver  and  his  colleague  on 
the  "Greenback"  ticket  was  307,000,  against  81,000  cast  for  Cooper  and 
Carey,  of  the  same  financial  platform,  in  1876. 

When  the  term  of  Mr.  Hayes  expired,  on  the  4th  of  March,  1881,  Gen 
eral  Garfield  succeeded  to  the  Presidency  by  lawful  election.  He  had  a  won 
derful  prestige,  an  inborn  physical  vigor.  He  had  the  advantages  of  classic 
culture,  refined  gifts  of  rhetoric,  some  experience  in  war,  and  much  more  in 
Congress.  He  was  inaugurated  with  a  grand  display.  He  was  a  man  born 
of  the  people.  He  arose  from  humble  estate.  The  public  services  which  he 
rendered  in  Ohio  immediately  preceding  the  Civil  War,  and  afterwards  as 
chief-of-staff  to  General  Rosecrans,  and  his  many  years  in  the  lower  branch 
of  Congress,  found  him  at  last,  in  1880,  chosen  United  States  Senator.  He 
advanced  to  this  position  by  steady  and  deserved  promotion.  The  Republi 
cans  know  well  how  to  honor  their  able  men.  This  gave  great  strength 
of  adhesion  to  their  party.  In  his  inaugural,  President  Garfield  touched 
with  elegant  phraseology  and  rare  felicity  upon  the  progress  of  American 
civilization.  He  made  his  constitutional  recommendations  with  a  happy 
selection  of  themes.  He  formed  a  brilliant  Cabinet.  James  G.  Blaine, 
of  Maine,  was  at  its  head,  with  a  genius  for  politics  as  clever  as  that  of 
Talleyrand  for  diplomacy,  or  Napoleon  for  war ;  but  this  cabinet  was 
doomed  to  a  short  existence.  Now,  for  the  second  time  in  the  history  of 
the  country,  a  great  tragedy  is  enacted.  James  A.  Garfield,  the  favored 
son  of  Ohio  and  President  of  the  Nation  is  cut  off  in  the  zenith  and  splen 
dor  of  his  grand  career !  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  preceding 
difficulties  between  the  factions  of  the  Republican  party  ;  the  one  headed  by 
Senator  Conkling,  and  the  other  by  Mr.  Blaine,  and  indorsed  by  the  Presi 
dent.  It  had  no  relation  to  the  tragedy.  The  latter  comes  in  an  unexpected 
way.  It  comes,  like  our  first  great  tragedy,  with  an  assassin's  pistol-shot. 
The  President  is  about  to  leave  Washington  on  a  visit  to  his  alma  mater  — 


676  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

Williams  College.  It  is  on  the  morning  of  the  2d  of  July.  Along  with 
him  are  Mr.  Blaine  and  other  friends.  He  is  about  to  take  the  cars  for  Long 
Branch,  at  the  Baltimore  depot.  An  obscure,  office-seeking  miscreant,  called 
Charles  Guiteau,  who  has  long  been  watching  for  this  opportunity  to  revenge 
his  disappointment,  creeps  stealthily  behind  the  unsuspicious  President ! 
He  is  within  a  few  feet  of  the  President.  With  fatal  aim  he  fires  his  weapon. 
Its  shot  strikes  the  President  in  the  back,  inflicting  a  terrible  wound.  For 
the  second  time  in  our  history  a  President  falls  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin ! 

The  Nation  is  thunderstruck.  There  is  awe  for  the  tragedy,  and  sadness 
for  the  victim.  From  time  to  time  hope  varies  with  the  alternations  of  the 
disease  which  supervenes  from  the  wound.  Medical  and  surgical  help  are 
vain.  It  is  half-past  ten,  on  the  evening  of  September  19,  when  the  Presi 
dent  suddenly  dies. 

For  eighty  days  he  had  borne  mental  anguish  and  bodily  pain  with  forti 
tude.  The  writer  at  that  time  was  within  a  few  miles  of  Tarsus,  where  Paul 
was  born.  There,  by  a  telegram  from  the  consul  at  Smyrna,  he  hears  the 
sad  news  of  the  death  of  his  friend,  the  President.  While  the  writer  was 
traveling  from  the  North  Cape,  in  the  Arctic  Ocean,  to  Constantinople,  the 
dark  shadow  of  that  crime  and  that  suffering  was  upon  his  path.  It  threw  a 
gloom  upon  the  very  dynasties  of  other  nations.  But  that  shadow  did  not 
eclipse  the  lustre  of  the  President's  life.  Whatever  may  have  been  his  weak 
nesses, — and  who  is  free  from  them?  —  he  lives  in  the  hearts  of  good  men. 

What  followed  the  people  know.  Immediately  after  the  death  of  Presi 
dent  Garfield,  Vice-President  Arthur  takes  the  oath  of  office  according  to 
the  requirements  of  the  Constitution.  How  skillfully  and  courteously  he 
managed  the  grand  trusts  of  the  high  office  to  which  he  succeeded,  is  now 
recognized.  He  was  well  equipped  for  Executive  duties,  as  a  man  of  educa 
tion,  of  great  knowledge  of  affairs,  and  as  a  lawyer,  and  a  practical  man  of 
business.  He  retired  from  the  office  of  President  with  the  best  wishes  of 
every  one  with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  He  had  many  severe  trials  con 
nected  with  the  bad  administration  of  affairs  in  the  post-office  and  other 
departments  of  the  government.  He  also  had  some  stormy  times  with  parti 
sans,  because  he  endeavored  to  be  just  to  the  country ;  but  amid  all  the  dis 
tractions  of  his  party  and  the  state,  he  maintained  that  decorous  dignity 
which  becomes  the  President  of  a  nation  whose  past  has  a  wondrous  lesson, 
whose  present  has  such  a  supreme  duty,  and  whose  future  such  a  radiant 
hope.  , 

The  most  notable  event  of  President  Arthur's  administration  was  the 
passage  in  Congress  of  Senator  Pendleton's  Civil  Service  Reform  bill.  It 
was  a  Democratic  measure,  which  had  much  to  do  in  1884  with  the  selection 
by  that  party,  of  a  Presidential  candidate,  in  harmony  with  its  spirit  and  of 
tried  fealty  to  its  principles.  The  assassination  of  General  Garfield  gave 
impulse  to  the  bill.  The  evils  which  its  provisions  were  intended  to  remedy 
are  acknowledged  by  most  men  of  judgment  and  experience  in  public  affairs. 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 


THE  INAUGURATION  OF  DEMOCRACY  AND  CLEVELAND. 

THE  PROVINCE  OF  HISTORY  — WHAT  THE  SOUTH  HAS  DONE  TO  RECUPERATE  — 
BLACK  AND  WHITE -NEW  ORLEANS  EXPOSITION  — THE  PLATFORM  OF  1884  — 
GOVERNOR  CLEVELAND  ITS  EXPONENT  — A  CATO  —  INAUGURATIONS  OF  1801 
AND  1885. -THE  NEW  ORDER,  BORN  OF  THE  GREAT  CONFLICT  — THE  FALSE 
HOOD  OF  EXTREMES,  AND  THE  PERMANENCY  OF  MODERATION. 

ALTHOUGH  it  is  not  so  much  the  province  of  history  to  philoso 
phize  as  to  relate,  the  writer  of  this  narrative  has  not  deemed  it 
inappropriate  to  comment  somewhat  freely  upon  the  men  and 
measures  of  his  Three  Decades.  A  civil  war  of  unprecedented 
magnitude  was  the  most  striking  event  of  this  troublous  period  in  the  history 
of  our  country.  That  war  is  an  epoch  in  our  career  as  remarkable  for  the 
events  which  immediately  preceded  it,  as  for  its  subsequent  influences  on  our 
polity  and  institutions.  Any  history  of  this  period  must  necessarily  discuss, 
almost  in  every  chapter,  the  causes  and  the  results  of  that  terrible  conflict. 
It  is  the  central  point  of  thought,  whether  for  narrative  or  philosophical  dis 
cussion.  The  men  in  the  conflict,  the  men  who  forced  the  conflict,  the  men 
who  made  the  peace ;  and  their  prejudices,  passions,  and  patriotism  must, 
therefore,  form  the  main  topic  of  discussion  when  recording  the  events  of 
the  last  three  decades  of  Federal  legislation.  The  legislation  of  that  period 
is  entombed  in  the  statute  books.  Most  of  it  is  obsolete  and  forgotten. 
What  remains  in  force,  as  well  as  what  is  obsolete,  has  had  its  inspiration 
and  source  in  the  motives  and  acts  of  these  men.  Hence  it  has  been  the 
writer's  aim  to  leave  to  coming  generations  some  record  of  them,  as  a  key 
to  the  history  of  this  period  when  it  shall  be  written. 

Our  Civil  War  has  left  many  indelible  impressions  on  Southern  character 
and  life.  It  changed  the  mode  of  life  in  the  South,  and  modified  in  many 
respects  the  Northern  opinion  of  the  people  of  that  section.  The  men  and 
women  of  the  South,  especially  those  of  the  Gulf  states,  have  had  experi 
ences,  mentally  and  morally,  which  have  wrought  many  modifications  in 


678  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

their  estimates  of  Northern  character.  Most  of  the  men  who  swayed  South 
ern  society  and  politics  died  in  or  since  the  war.  They  are  gone  to  their 
rest.  Their  shadowy  forms  only  appear  to  the  soft  light  of  affectionate 
remembrance.  If  the  light  which  led  them  into  secession  led  astray,  it  was 
light  from  some  standard  of  nobility.  They  had  a  sensitive  love  of  honor. 
They  had  a  proud  belief  in  family  and  state  which  made  them  over-confi 
dent.  They  had  a  great  love  of  neighborhood  which  made  them  indiscrimi 
nately  confiding.  They  had  a  grand  hospitality  which  made  it  impossible 
for  them  to  think  truly  of  future  events  in  connection  with  their  own  home 
steads.  But  along  with  these  qualities  there  was  a  universal  self-respect 
which  kept  them  pure  and  undegenerate.  They  were  never  base.  They 
bore  their  misfortunes  with  uncomplaining  fortitude. 

When  the  war  ended,  what  struggles  for  existence  ensued !  Men,  and 
even  women,  in  their  respective  spheres,  so  long  as  there  was  military  organ 
ization,  could  not  be  dispirited  or  beaten.  The  weight  of  exhaustless  num 
bers  and  resources,  the  skill  of  invention,  and  the  animation  of  a  kindred 
gallantry  for  the  Union  could  alone  conquer  Secession  ;  but  all  these  did  not 
subdue  the  spirit  of  its  adherents.  The  South  appeared  to  be  ruined  hope 
lessly  and  irretrievably  in  the  long  contest.  Her  education  had  not  fitted 
her  for  disaster.  Ominous  whispers  ran  around  that  her  sons  and  daughters 
had  been  reared  to  make  no  effort,  that  they  were  destitute  of  energy,  that 
their  women  were  not  housekeepers,  and  that  their  men  were  not  provident 
and  economical.  What,  then,  could  they  accomplish  under  circumstances 
that  might  appall  the  stoutest  heart  and  mind  ?  This  was  the  Northern  esti 
mate  of  this  people ;  yet  what  could  they  not  accomplish  ?  What  did  they 
not  do  in  rebuilding  their  shattered  fortunes  and  dismantled  places  ?  A  few 
years,  and  lo  !  order  comes  out  of  chaos  ;  happiness  succeeds  misery  ;  pros 
perity,  gay,  fair,  debonair,  healthful,  and  vigorous,  arises  out  of  the  very 
ashes  of  desolation.  How  was  this  change  wrought?  Partly  through  the 
organization  of  the  state  governments  which  in  desperation  they  rescued  from 
the  spoiler ;  partly  in  the  counting-house,  the  shop,  and  most  of  all  in  the 
field  of  agriculture ;  by  the  loom,  the  needle,  and  the  cook-stove,  and  by  a 
determined  persistency  to  succeed,  never  expected  by  the  outside  world. 
Everywhere  energy  and  industry  were  displayed  in  connection  with  that 
splendor  of  gallantry  which  no  honorable  and  truthful  man  denies  to  the 
Southern  character. 

Now,  as  this  volume  closes,  New  Orleans  makes  her  exposition  of 
Southern  achievements.  It  is  a  peaceful  victory,  —  commercial  and  indus 
trial.  It  exhibits  the  wealth  and  working  power  of  the  South.  It  bursts 
forth  almost  as  unexpectedly  and  beautifully  as  the  famous  flower  of  the 
forests  of  Ceylon,  with  a  startling  report  and  an  opulence  of  fragrance. 
Strange  to  say,  within  sight  of  the  industrial  elements  at  New  Orleans,  is  a 
camp  where  the  veterans  of  the  Confederate  and  Union  armies  assemble  in 


WHAT  THE  SOUTH  HAS  DONE  TO  RECUPERATE.  679 

blessed  concord.  It  is  a  congratulatory  and  hopeful  augury.  Chancellors- 
ville  and  Gettysburg  meet  together :  Shiloh  and  Antietam  salute  each  other. 
The  old  soldiers  talk'  over  bygones,  in  peace  and  brotherhood.  The  great 
war  which  raged  twenty  years  ago  has  left  no  scars  with  the  just  and  honor 
able  warriors.  The  channels  of  wrath  are  filled  up  with  the  waters  of 
Lethe.  Immigration  comes  from  the  North.  Old  foes  shake  hands  and 
learn  to  understand  each  other,  and  to  recognize  their  common  interests  and 
fraternity.  The  South  no  longer  speaks  with  pathos.  She  no  longer  sings 
the  miserere.  She  has  gone  through  her  poverty.  She  smiles  at  defeat. 
Her  cities  were  destroyed,  her  fields  desolated,  and  her  labor  disorganized ; 
her  homes  were  in  ruins,  her  families  scattered,  and  her  sons  fell  in  the  battle  ; 
but  in  the  face  of  trial  and  trouble,  under  the  dark  shadow  of  this  ineffable 
sorrow,  she  rises  from  the  ashes  of  desolation  and  reveals  more  clearly  the 
splendid  attributes  of  her  character  and  the  grand  importance  of  the  work 
before  her.  Every  element  in  the  South  seems  to  have  been  resurrected  for 
her  resuscitation.  What  of  the  white  man?  He  is  enfranchised  in  many 
ways.  What  of  the  negro  ?  He  is  recognized  as  a  citizen  whose  rights  are 
secure ;  is  an  integral  part  of  Southern  civilization.  By  a  pledge  stronger 
and  firmer  than  any  party  platform  or  civil  rights  law,  by  a  guarantee 
firmer  than  any  constitutional  provision,  citizenship  and  the  equality  of  civil 
and  political  rights  have  been  assured  to  the  men  of  swarthy  looks.  What 
ever  may  have  been  thought  of  the  advisability  of  the  last  two  constitutional 
amendments  at  the  time  and  under  the  peculiar  influence  of  their  adoption, 
they  are  now  fixed  in  the  fundamental  law  as  firmly  as  any  other  part  of  it. 
They  will  never  be  questioned  nor  disturbed.  By  the  order  of  events  and  of 
nature,  the  negro  is  left  to  his  own  contest.  If  he  would  have  position  and 
power  he  must  achieve  it  by  his  own  energy,  judgment,  and  will.  If  he 
relies  upon  political  sympathy  for  his  advancement,  he  will  find  that  he  has 
been  leaning  upon  a  broken  reed,  and  that  he  must  lean  upon  himself.  The 
honor  of  the  Republic  has  been  pledged  to  the  sustentation  of  those  elements 
which  secure  the  negro  in  his  citizenship  with  all  its  incidents  and  rights. 

Is  it  asked  what  will  be  the  condition  of  parties  in  the  South  at  the  end 
of  the  next  decade  ?  The  last  election  perhaps  indicates,  to  some  extent.  The 
significant  utterances  of  President  Cleveland  demonstrate  that  the  party 
which  is  now  dominant  is  not  the  sectional  party.  That  party  is  national 
which  polls  the  grand  majorities  South  and  an  immense  vote  North.  Its 
voters  in  the  North,  South,  and  West,  in  spite  of  all  objurgation  to  the  con 
trary,  are  too  strong  in  intelligence  and  numbers  for  any  future  disquietude 
as  to  sectionalism.  Ten  millions  of  people  have  voted  to  discontinue  the 
long  retained  power  of  government  in  the  hands  of  one  party.  There  were 
reasons  for  this  change.  Reasons  which  fail  to  justify  heavy  taxation,  or  to 
vindicate  accumulations  in  the  treasury.  Reasons  which  are  larger  than 
fiscal  policies.  They  belong  to  the  policy  of  principle.  They  are  historic 


680  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

and  philosophic, — historic  because  philosophic.  We  had  reached  a  stage  in 
which  certain  leaders  of  the  Republican  party  would  have  embraced  any  pre 
text  for  transforming  our  government  into  something  more  absolute  than  it  is. 

It  is  a  marvel  that  the  Constitution  has  been  preserved  to  us  through  the 
ordeal  of  civil  war.  It  is,  at  the  same  time,  almost  a  miracle  that  the  pen 
dulum  is  again  swinging  toward  decentralization.  Alexander  Hamilton 
thought  that  the  British  Government  was  the  best  in  the  world,  and  doubted 
much  whether  anything  short  of  it  would  do  for  America.  He  declaimed 
against  the  vices  of  democracy,  and  insisted  that  the  British  Government  was 
the  only  one  in  the  world  which  united  public  strength  with  individual  secu 
rity.  He  insisted  on  our  government  being  modeled  after  the  British  Gov 
ernment  as  nearly  as  practicable,  and  proposed  to  abolish  the  states,  or  sub 
ordinate  them  in  the  municipal  corporation  and  consolidate  all  power  in  the 
Federal  Government.  But  were  he  alive  to-day,  would  he  not  abandon  his 
worship  of  the  old  Federal  fetich  ?  Would  he  not  say  that  the  philosophy  of 
the  Democratic  party  should  be  judged  by  the  experience  of  a  hundred  years, 
and  the  tenets  by  which  its  perpetuity  has  been  made  so  honorable  and  pros 
perous  ?  Each  of  the  great  parties  to-day  professes,  and  can  profess,  no  other 
than  popular  democratic  principles.  Were  not  Milton,  Locke,  and  Alger 
non  Sidney  the  prototypes  of  Jefferson  ?  Is  there  any  party  to-day  which 
would  openly  advocate  aristocratic  and  autocratic  rule?  It  would  have  a 
summary  fate  and  short  shrift.  This  has  been  the  final  outcome  and  end  of 
the  various  parties  which,  since  1791,  have  opposed  the  Democracy. 

Whatever  their  name,  there  will  ever  be  two  schools  of  political  philoso 
phy,  and  two  parties  in  this  country  accepting  their  doctrines  ;  one  with  Fed 
eral  tendencies  for  a  strong  centralized  government,  distrustful  of  the  people, 
and  the  other  seeking  local  governments  and  strictly  defining  the  sphere  of 
national  powers  to  national  necessities.  Hence,  in  concluding  these  chapters 
of  our  history  of  three  decades,  is  it  not  well  to  remember  that,  however 
plausible  the  platform  adopted  at  Chicago  by  the  convention  which  nomi 
nated  Mr.  Blaine  may  be,  and  however  suave  his  letter  of  acceptance, —  the 
federative  system  of  Hamilton  is  the  framework  of  that  platform.  It  was 
repudiated  by  the  people  when  they  sustained  a  platform  which  contains 
something  beyond  platitudes.  The  Democratic  platform  was  inherited  from 
the  days  of  Jefferson.  What  does  it  mean?  Free  commerce  with  all 
nations,  political  connections  with  none.  Hostility  to  monopoly  by  legisla 
tion  as  violative  of  the  equal  rights  of  the  people.  No  fostering  of  one 
branch  of  industry  to  the  detriment  of  another.  The  practice  of  the  most 
rigid  economy  in  the  conduct  of  public  affairs.  No  more  revenue  than  is 
required  to  defray  the  necessary  expenses  of  government.  These  doctrines 
are  a  part  of  the  Democratic  platform  of  every  state  convention.  The 
Democratic  platform  adopted  at  Chicago  on  the  loth  of  July,  1884,  was  not 
made  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  the  election  of  any  one  man  President, 


THE  PROFESSIONS  OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY.  68 1 

even  though  he  might  be  as  honest  as  G rover  Cleveland.  That  platform 
was  a  declaration  of  principles  adopted  by  representative  men,  who  saw  that 
the  Nation  was  growing  older,  and  that  new  issues  were  born.  They  had 
gone  through  many  trials  during  the  war,  and  they  desired  the  preservation 
of  personal  rights,  and  of  the  reserved  rights  of  the  states,  while  acknowl 
edging  the  supremacy  of  the  Federal  Government  within  the  limits  of  the 
Constitution.  These  are  the  true  bases  of  our  liberties  which  the  Democracy 
could  not  surrender.  When  the  condition  of  the  country  demanded  a  change 
the  Democracy  made  an  indictment  of  the  party  which  had  been  in  power 
for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  The  indictment  charged  that  the  Republican 
party  during  its  legal,  its  stolen,  and  its  bought  tenures  of  power  had  steadily 
decayed  in  moral  character  and  political  capacity.  Its  promises  as  to  the 
navy  and  shipping  were  failures.  It  was  at  war  with  its  own  professions  as 
to  the  public  lands  and  small  holdings.  The  indictment  proceeds  to  say,  that 
that  party  has  given  away  to  railroads,  and  non-resident  aliens,  individual 
and  corporate,  a  larger  area  than  that  of  all  our  farms  between  the  two  seas. 
Has  not  the  verdict  sustained  the  indictment? 

The  Republican  party  still  professes  a  preference  for  free  institutions  :  yet 
it  organized  and  tried  to  legalize  a  control  of  state  elections  by  Federal 
troops.  It  professes  a  desire  to  elevate  labor :  yet  it  subjected  American  work- 
ingmen  to  the  competition  of  convict  labor  and  imported  contract  laborers. 
It  professes  gratitude  to  all  who  were  disabled  or  died  in  the  war,  leaving 
widows  and  orphans :  yet  it  left  to  a  Democratic  House  of  Representatives 
the  first  effort  to  equalize  both  bounties  and  pensions.  It  proffers  a  pledge  to 
correct  the  irregularities  of  our  tariff:  yet  it  created  and  continued  them. 
Its  own  Tariff  Commission  confessed  the  need  of  more  than  twenty  per  cent, 
reduction  :  yet  its  Representatives  in  Congress  gave  a  reduction  of  less  than 
four  per  cent.  It  declares  for  the  protection  of  American  manufactures  :  yet 
it  subjected  them  to  an  increasing  flood  of  home  manufactured  goods,  and  a 
hopeless  competition  with  manufacturing  nations,  not  one  of  which  taxes 
raw  materials.  It  professes  to  protect  all  American  industries :  yet  it  im 
poverished  many  to  subsidize  a  few.  It  professes  the  protection  of  Ameri 
can  labor  :  yet  it  depleted  the  returns  of  agriculture  —  an  industry  followed 
by  half  our  people.  It  professes  the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law :  and 
while  attempting  to  fix  the  status  of  colored  citizens,  the  acts  of  its  Con 
gresses  were  overset  by  the  decisions  of  Republican  courts.  It  u  accepts 
anew  the  duty  of  leading  in  the  work  of  progress  and  reform "  :  yet  its 
detected  criminals  are  permitted  to  escape  through  contrived  delays  or  actual 
connivance  of  the  prosecution.  Honeycombed  with  corruption,  outbreaking 
exposures  have  long  since  ceased  to  shock  its  moral  sense.  Its  honest  mem 
bers,  its  independent  journals,  no  longer  maintain  a  successful  contest  for 
authority  in  its  counsels  or  support  its  bad  nominations.  That  change  of  party 
rule  was  necessary,  is  proved  by  an  existing  surplus  of  more  than  one  hundred 

43 


682  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

million  dollars  in  excess  of  the  needs  of  the  government.  Unnecessary  taxa 
tion  is  unjust  taxation.  The  Republican  party  failed  to  relieve  the  people 
from  crushing  war  taxes,  which,  were  it  not  for  our  immense  resources, 
would  have  paralyzed  business,  crippled  industry,  and  deprived  labor  of  em 
ployment  and  its  just  reward.  The  Democracy  pledges  itself  to  purity  of 
administration,  to  economy,  to  respect  for  law,  and  to  the  reduction  of  taxa 
tion  to  the  lowest  limit  consistent  with  a  due  regard  to  the  preservation  of  the 
faith  of  the  Nation  to  its  creditors  and  pensioners.  Knowing  full  well,  how 
ever,  that  legislation  affecting  the  occupations  of  the  people  should  be  cau 
tious  and  conservative  in  method,  not  in  advance  of  public  opinion,  but 
responsive  to  its  demands,  that  party  has  pledged  itself  to  revise  the  tariff 
laws  in  a  spirit  of  fairness  to  all  interests. 

In  its  latest  platform  the  Democracy  stands  pledged  to  restore  the  econo 
mies  belonging  to  a  fair  and  free  government.  They  favor  a  continental 
policy  which  would  have  accorded  with  the  best  sentiment  of  the  days  of 
William  L.  Marcy.  They  are  pledged  in  favor  of  honest  money, — for  the 
gold  and  silver  coinage  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  paper  circulating  medium 
convertible  into  such  money  without  loss.  Remembering  the  struggle  to 
which  reference  has  been  made  in  a  preceding  chapter,  and  in  which  Mr. 
Hewitt,  of  New- York,  led  the  debate  in  the  Forty-fifth  and  Forty-sixth  Con 
gresses,  it  may  be  proudly  claimed  that  the  Democracy  compelled  a  reluctant 
Republican  administration  to  assent  to  legislation  which  made  everywhere 
illegal  the  presence  of  Federal  troops  at  the  polls.  This  is  one  of  the  con 
clusive  proofs  that  a  Democratic  administration  can  preserve  liberty  with 
order  by  constitutional  methods. 

On  social  and  sumptuary  matters  the  Democracy  met  the  advances  of  lib 
erty  more  than  halfway.  In  favoring  an  honest  non-partisan  civil  service, 
they  will  fulfill  their  pledges  and  their  promises.  In  sympathizing  with  labor 
in  its  just  demands,  they  are  as  sincere  in  their  professions  as  they  have  been 
in  their  practices.  In  opposing  the  confirmation  of  unearned  grants  of  the 
public  lands  and  demanding  their  forfeiture  in  the  Congress  which  has  just 
expired,  they  have  been  true  to  the  policy  of  reserving  the  public  domain  for 
the  use  of  the  people. 

While  insisting  that  we  shall  have  no  entangling  foreign  policy,  they  ask 
for  a  return  to  the  old  democratic  policy  of  reciprocity,  which  will  give  us 
a  larger  market  for  the  varied  products  of  our  industry,  —  a  market  which 
under  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  Republican  rule  became  so  limited  that 
scarcely  a  merchant  flag  remained  upon  the  sea  as  evidence  of  our  former 
maritime  prowess  and  adventure. 

It  was  on  this  platform  of  Democratic  principles  that  Gov.  Grover 
Cleveland,  of  New-York,  and  Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  of  Indiana,  were 
nominated  for  President  and  Vice-President. 

It  would  be  invidious  to  make  comparisons  between  the  two  leading  can- 


RESTORATION  OF  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  TO  POWER.        683 

didates  before  the  people  of  this  country  in  1884.  In  fact,  they  present  points 
of  contrast,  rather  than  of  comparison.  The  Republican  candidate  was  no 
new  man  in  Federal  politics,  as  was  Governor  Cleveland. 

When  one  would  compare  James  G.  Elaine,  that  splendid  glancing  fig 
ure  in  our  politics,  with  the  sedate,  quiet,  and  unostentatious  governor  of 
New- York,  it  is  like  comparing  the  electric  flashings  of  the  aurora  borealis 
to  the  stately  movements  of  the  rising  sun, —  that  source  of  growth  and  life. 
Grover  Cleveland  was  born  in  Essex  County,  New  Jersey,  in  1837.  His 
father  was  a  Presbyterian  clergyman.  His  family  was  ennobled  through 
many  generations  by  honest  men  and  women.  Its  most  conspicuous  mem 
ber  steadily  advanced  to  high  position.  After  serving  as  mayor  of  Buffalo, 
Grover  Cleveland  became  governor  of  the  State  of  New- York.  Since 
then  his  star  has  been  in  the  ascendant.  Since  his  first  vote  was  cast 
he  has  been  a  Democrat  of  the  best  type.  His  election  to  the  gubernatorial 
chair  by  an  astounding  majority  of  two  hundred  thousand  votes  indicates 
the  fickleness  of  the  popular  breath.  It  was  so  tempestuous  in  his  favor,  that 
he  cannot  fail  to  discern  the  power  of  that  independent  element  to  which  he 
is  indebted  for  his  first,  as  well  as  his  more  recent  triumphs.  That  he 
respects  this  element,  is  significant  of  his  prudence  and  his  gratitude. 

Grover  Cleveland  is  in  his  forty-eighth  year.  He  has  a  powerful  frame. 
His  manners  are  agreeable.  He  is  liberal  in  his  thoughts.  He  is  a  man  of 
democratic  simplicity.  He  dislikes  ostentation.  The  key-note  to  his  char 
acter  is  found  in  the  moderation  and  frugality  of  his  life.  His  firmness  and 
courage,  and  his  deliberate  judicious  action  mark  him  as  a  man  of  manliest 
mould,  and  high  capacity  for  leadership  and  administration.  He  is  a  Jeffer- 
sonian  Democrat,  honest,  capable,  and  faithful  to  the  Constitution. 

In  the  election  of  1884  the  people  expressed  their  national  conscious 
ness.  In  other  words,  there  was  a  revolution  which  dethroned  a  corrupt 
and  effete  party.  In  closing  the  last  decade  of  this  history,  we  see  the 
Democratic  party  restored  to  power, —  and  at  the  head  of  our  Nation,  Grover 
Cleveland.  If  Silas  Wright  deserved  to  be  called  by  Thomas  Benton  the 
Cato  of  America,  may  we  not  in  tracing  the  life  of  the  successor  of  Silas 
Wright,  from  his  birthplace,  through  childhood  and  as  student,  following 
him  through  his  professional  career  until  his  election  as  magistrate  of  a  city 
and  then  as  governor  of  a  great  state,  find  many  of  the  attributes  of  Wright, 
and  also  something  of  the  famous  Roman  ?  In  many  ways  the  similitude 
is  striking ;  and  most  in  that  he  is  truthful,  honest,  unselfish,  kind  hearted, 
and  devoted  to  the  principles  of  Democracy  and  the  welfare  of  the  country. 

R.ome  never  needed  a  Cato  more  than  America  needed  a  man  of  similar 
qualities,  to  free  her  from  the  gyves  of  corrupt  politics.  This  Nation  has 
such  a  man  for  President.  While  others  may  falter  in  duty,  he  will  stand 
firm  and  true  to  the  principles  of  the  platform  on  which  he  was  elected,  and 
observe  and  carry  out  his  pledges  of  reform  in  letter  and  spirit.  His  need 


684  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

was  so  exigent  that  we  may  well  stand  appalled  at  the  danger  we  have 
escaped,  and  which  threatened  our  free  institutions.  It  needed  a  statesman 
as  courageous  as  Caesar  and  as  honest  as  Cato  to  save  our  liberties  from  a 
decadence  worse  than  death  ! 

It  is  upon  the  same  day  of  the  week,  and  the  same  month,  eighty-four 
years  after  the^  inauguration  of  the  first  Democratic  President,  Thomas  Jef 
ferson,  at  the  new  city  of  Washington,  that  Grover  Cleveland  and  Thomas 
A.  Hendricks  are  installed  in  their  high  offices.  A  contrast  of  the  city  of 
1801  with  the  city  of  to-day  will  show  something  of  the  progress  of  our 
country  in  all  that  makes  up  grandeur,  extent,  influence,  prestige,  and  power. 
Perhaps  a  more  striking  contrast  would  be  that  of  the  two  inaugurations. 
The  first  was  as  unostentatious  as  the  village  in  which  it  occurred.  The 
second  well  became  the  capital  of  a  mighty  nation.  There  seemed  to  be  no 
end  to  the  grand  and  imposing  cavalcade  which  ushered  in  this  new  epoch. 
No  such  display  of  men  in  line,  or  of  enthusiasm  at  heart,  has  ever  been 
witnessed  in  any  country.  The  cycle  of  our  felicities  closes  with  this  grand 
restoration  of  Democratic  government !  After  three  decades  of  wandering 
in  the  wilderness,  the  people  at  last  have  their  representative  men  installed  in 
their  great  trusts. 

The  writer,  in  closing  this  volume  at  the  commencement  of  a  new  regime, 
cannot  but  recall  the  attempts  of  those  who  opposed  the  Democratic  party  in 
its  efforts  for  peace  and  harmony  during  the  terrible  struggles  of  the  past  three 
decades.  At  length  peace  has  come  !  Slavery,  the  bete  noir  of  our  politics, 
is  no  more.  The  constitutional  amendments  are  acquiesced  in.  A  majority 
of  the  Southern  members  of  Congress,  on  a  resolution  offered  by  the  writer, 
have  affirmed  their  devotion  to  the  Union,  and  asserted  that  secession  is  for 
ever  gone  to  the  rearward  and  abysm. 

The  country  is  greatly  changed.  It  is  changed  politically,  socially,  ma 
terially,  nationally.  Novus  seculorum  nascitur  ordo.  Our  next  census  will 
show  sixty  millions  of  people.  By  the  end  of  the  century  it  will  show  a 
hundred  millions.  The  questions  of  municipal  independence,  state  rights, 
and  local  self-government  may  come  again ;  but  never  again  with  so  much 
terrible  consequence  as  in  i86o-'6i. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  writer,  it  is  only  by  guarding  against  the  central 
ization  of  government  that  the  great  diversity  of  interests  in  a  Union  of  such 
extent  as  ours  can  be  harmonized,  and  individual  rights  be  secured.  The 
doctrines  of  local  independence  and  self-government  have  ever  been  the  in 
spiration  of  the  writer.  Without  these  doctrines  our  Union  would  be  forever 
endangered.  By  adhering  to  them  it  will  fulfill  the  hopes  and  answer  the 
prayers  of  all  true  patriots.  They  furnish  the  key  to  unlock  the  magic  cham 
bers  of  our  future.  They  are  the  safe  and  golden  mean  between  the  ex 
tremes  of  faction. 


CHAPTER  XL 


MATERIAL  PROGRESS  IN  THREE  DECADES. 

RESULTS  OF  CENSUSES  -  OBJECT  OF  CENSUS  FROM  1790  — THE  LEGISLATION  FOR 
THE  TENTH  CENSUS,  OF  1880  — ITS  COMPLETENESS  —  STAR  OF  EMPIRE  AND 
CENTRE  OF  POPULATION  IN  1880  — SOCIAL  STATISTICS  -  CENTENNIAL  YEAR- 
OUR  INCREASE  FROM  DECADE  TO  DECADE  —  DETAILS  OF  ADVANCEMENT- 
FEDERAL  TRADE  AND  TARIFF  RESTRICTIONS  —  HINDRANCES  TO  PHYSICAL 
GROWTH  — ODDITIES  OF  THE  CENSUS— THE  PUBLIC  LANDS  — PRIMARY  OB 
JECT  OF  THE  CENSUS  —  THE  APPORTIONMENT  OF  REPRESENTATION— RE 
SULT  OF  THE  LAST  APPORTIONMENT  -  INCREASE  OF  THE  SOUTH  IN 
POLITICAL  POWER  —  POPULATION,  AND  NOT  VOTES,  THE  BASIS  —  OUR 
UNIQUE  SYSTEM  — THE  MUNIMENTS  OF  PUBLIC  LIBERTY  FOUNDED  ON  THE 
CENSUS  OF  POPULATION  —  OUR  LIGHT  OF  LIBERTY. 

IN  the  concluding  chapters  of  this  volume,  which  has  reference  to  only 
thirty  years  of  our  American  history,  there  would  be  an  incomplete 
ness  of  etching  if,  amid  the  vicissitudes  of  war  and  peace,  the  advance 
ment  of  the  country  were  not  more  or  less  touched  upon.  No  country 
ever  had  better  established  data  for  the  ascertainment  of  its  progress  than 
the  United  States.  It  is  no  new  remark  that  this  country  stands  alone 
among  nations  in  its  exhaustive  state  and  federal  system  of  registry  or  census, 
beginning  with  the  commencement  of  the  government  and  extending  down 
to  the  present  time.  It  has  already  taken  ten  national  censuses.  All  of 
these  have  had  reference  to  the  enumeration  of  the  inhabitants  required  by 
the  Federal  Constitution  to  be  made  once  every  decade.  The  primary  object 
of  the  constitutional  provision  is  to  fix  the  apportionment  of  representa 
tives,  and  of  direct  taxes  among  the  states.  The  matter  of  direct  taxes  has 
become,  for  reasons  not  necessary  to  detail,  obsolete.  The  apportionment 
of  representatives  has  passed  through  many  and  curious  processes  of  legisla 
tion.  In  the  course  of  a  decade,  it  would  become  almost  impossible  to 
insure  the  indispensable  prerequisite  of  fair  representation  for  a  rapidly  in 
creasing  population  like  that  of  the  several  states,  in  a  Federal  polity  like 
ours,  without  a  veracious  return  of  their  inhabitants.  The  first  census,  of 
1790,  merely  undertook  to  require  a  return  of  the  inhabitants.  The  second 
census,  of  1800,  was  like  the  first.  The  third  was  identical  with  the  second. 
But  a  grand  stride  was  taken  in  1810,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  under  the 
direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Albert  Gallatin.  He  went  outside 
of  the  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution  and  undertook  to  have  an  ac- 


686  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

count  of  the  manufacturing  establishments  and  manufactures  returned  by  the 
census  takers  of  the  several  districts.  He  was  limited  to  an  expenditure  of 
$30,000.  How  meagre  that  outlay  in  comparison  with  that  of  1880,  which 
amounted  to  millions  !  In  the  fourth  census  law,  of  1820,  the  same  provi 
sions  were  re-enacted.  In  1830,  there  was  little  change  for  the  better  in  the 
mode  of  taking  the  census.  But  in  1840,  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1839, 
for  the  sixth  census,  the  census  lists  included  revolutionary  pensioners,  man 
ufacturing,  agricultural,  and  educational  statistics.  A  grand  progress  was 
being  made  in  our  country  at  that  time.  The  following  decade  showed 
remarkable  vitality  in  the  Republic.  The  star  of  empire  was  moving  rapidly 
to  the  westward.  Wealth  was  following  its  course.  Bankruptcies  and 
crises  also  followed  ;  but  the  railroad,  the  steamship,  and  the  telegraph  began 
to  foreshadow  an  approaching  revolution  in  all  that  would  make  material 
progress  and  physical  grandeur.  Immigration  began  to  set  in,  especially 
from  Ireland,  whence  the  famine  drove  out  fabulous  numbers  of  people. 
These  interesting  features  of  our  advancement  led  to  a  better  law.  It  was 
enacted  on  May  3,  1850.  Under  it  the  censuses  of  1850,  1860,  and  1870 
were  taken.  And  yet,  owing  to  our  swift  progress,  that  law  turned  out  to 
be  very  inadequate  and  imperfect,  as  applied  to  the  condition  of  things  in 
1870  and  1880.  It  then  seemed  to  be  so  clumsy,  antiquated,  and  barbarous, 
as  applied  to  the  new  conditions  of  life  in  America,  that,  in  the  language  of 
Superintendent  Walker,  it  was  as  the  smooth-bore,  muzzle-loading  queen's- 
arm  of  the  Revolution,  to  the  repeating  rifle  of  the  present  time.  The  law 
needed  radical  change,  if  not  repeal.  It  was  the  privilege  of  the  author  to 
take  a  part  in  forwarding  the  amendments  of  General  Garfield's  bill  for  the 
census  of  1870.  One  of  the  features  of  that  bill  was  to  delegate  the  power 
of  taking  the  census  to  supervisors  and  special  enumerators,  and  to  take  the 
business  away  from  the  United  States  marshals,  who,  for  very  many  reasons 
not  necessary  to  be  named,  were  incompetent  and  untrustworthy.  This  bill 
failed,  not  in  the  House  but  in  the  Senate. 

The  author  introduced  a  bill  for  the  tenth  census  of  1880,  which  substan 
tially  became  a  law  on  the  3d  of  March,  1879.  ^  fixed  the  cost  of  the  work 
at  three  millions,  but,  as  it  turned  out,  a  larger  sum  became  necessary,  owing 
to  the  multitude  of  statistics  collected  outside  of  the  mere  registry  of  popu 
lation.  Under  that  law  it  was  requisite,  on  or  before  the  ist  of  March,  1880, 
to  designate  the  number  of  supervisors  of  census  to  be  appointed  in  each 
state  and  territory.  Various  other  provisions  were  made,  by  which  the  enu 
merators  who  acted  under  the  supervisors  were  required  to  visit  each  dwell 
ing-house  and  family,  and  obtain  certain  information  in  addition  to  statistics 
of  population.  But  there  was  an  additional  provision  in  that  law  which 
authorized  the  employment  of  a  number  of  experts  on  certain  subjects  con 
nected  with  our  physical  progress.  Their  reports  have  not  yet  been  fully 
printed.  And  although  many  misadventures  have  occurred  in  relation  to 
the  completion  of  the  census  according  to  the  design  of  its  authors,  yet,  by 


THE  TENTH  CENSUS,  OF  1880.  687 

the  general  consent  of  all  statisticians,  there  never  has  been  made  for  man 
kind,  in  any  nation,  such  a  stupendous  collection  of  facts  upon  which  to  base 
political  representation  and  discuss  questions  of  social  science.  Nearly 
every  review  in  Germany,  Great  Britain,  France,  and  other  countries  where 
intelligence  has  ruled  upon  this  subject,  has  commended  this  remarkable 
census. 

The  census  of  1870  was,  in  some  states,  an  unreliable  and  slovenly  per 
formance.  The  conditions  just  after  the  war,  in  the  South,  were  too  chaotic 
for  accuracy  and  completeness,  even  in  the  simple  matter  of  population. 
No  fault,  however,  was  found  with  the  census  work  of  1880,  that  was  not 
promptly  corrected,  even  by  a  second  taking  of  the  population.  The  work 
of  enumeration,  which  began  on  the  first  Monday  of  June,  was  completed, 
so  far  as  it  related  to  population,  within  the  month,  viz. :  by  the  ist  of  July 
following.  In  cities  of  over  ten  thousand  inhabitants  it  was  completed 
within  two  weeks.  The  census  was  thus  taken,  as  to  population,  in  a  shorter 
time  than  ever  before. 

The  writer  may  be  partial  to  the  census  work,  but  he  cannot  omit,  in  a 
book  on  Federal  legislation,  some  mention  of  that  which  gives  us  the  most 
perspicuous  and  methodical  account  of  the  improvement  of  our  country  in 
the  three  decades  comprehended  by  this  history.  The  Compendium  of  the 
Tenth  Census,  if  not  the  more  elaborate  volumes  themselves,  is  within  the 
reach  of  the  people.  The  schedules  are  intelligible.  The  special  and  novel 
inquiries,  and  their  responses,  as  to  railway,  telegraph,  and  express  and  in 
surance  companies,  and  especially  matters  connected  with  manufactures  and 
agriculture  in  every  form  and  variety  of  human  product,  have  had  their  full 
return  in  this  census.  Accurate  and  reliable  statistics  have  been  secured  for 
the  first  time  in  these  various  modes  of  business,  and  in  bulk  the  material 
collected  and  published  has  been  double  that  obtained  by  any  former  census. 
In  relation  to  taxation  and  the  public  debt,  no  such  return  has  ever  been 
made  to  the  authorities  of  any  other  nation.  The  tabular  statement  as  to 
population  shows  that  from  1 790,  when  we  reached  nearly  four  millions  of 
people,  to  1880,  when  our  population  became  50,155,783,  there  has  been  no 
such  national  progress  made  in  any  other  country,  within  the  like  period. 
To  go  back  only  to  1860,  so  as  to  bring  it  specially  within  the  field  of  the 
observations  in  this  volume,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  population  in  that  year 
was  rising  of  thirty  millions,  or  31,443,321.  So  that,  since  we  started  in 
our  career  in  1790,  we  increased  our  population  nearly  thirteen  times;  and 
since  1860,  we  have  nearly  doubled  our  population ! 

A  fanciful  way  of  exhibiting  our  progress,  is  that  adopted  in  our  last  cen 
sus  volumes  by  graphic  maps  and  diagrams.  But  nothing  shows  more  strik 
ingly  the  march  of  this  Nation  across  the  continent  than  the  large  census 
map  of  1880  which  illustrates  the  movement  of  the  "centre  of  population." 
By  the  centre  of  population  is  meant  "the  point  at  which  equilibrium  would 
be  reached  were  the  country  taken  as  a  plane  surface^  itself  without  weight, 


688 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


but  capable  of  sustaining  weight,  and  loaded  with  its  inhabitants,  in  num 
ber  and  position  as  they  are  found  at  the  period  under  consideration,  each 
individual  being  assumed  to  be  of  the  same  gravity  as  every  other,  and  con 
sequently  to  exert  pressure  on  the  pivotal  point  directly  proportionate  to  his 
distance  therefrom.  It  is  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  population  of  the 
country." 

According  to  the  calculations  of  the  census  office,  this  centre  in  1880  was 
in  latitude  39°  04'  08",  and  longitude,  84°  39'  40".  The  position  of  the 
Old  Observatory,  at  Mount  Adams,  Cincinnati,  is :  latitude,  39°  06'  26.5" ; 
longitude,  84°  29'  45"  . 

The  centre  of  gravity  for  1880  was,  therefore,  2.6  miles  south  of  this 
observatory  and  8.9  miles  west  of  it.  That  is,  it  is  9.3  miles  west  by  south 
from  the  observatory,  or  eight  miles  west  by  south  from  the  heart  of  the  city 
of  Cincinnati.  This  places  it  in  Kentucky,  one  mile  from  the  south  bank  of 
the  Ohio  River,  and  a  mile  and  a  half  southeast  of  the  village  of  Taylors- 
ville.  Since  the  census  statement  was  made  this  centre  has  changed,  and, 
doubtless,  five  millions  of  population  have  been  added  to  the  national  pivot 
pressure,  as  a  climax  of  the  author's  three  decades. 

Table  XV.  in  Volume  I.  of  the  Census  Reports  for  1880,  with  an  accom 
panying  map.  shows  the  westward  movement  of  the  centre  of  our  popula 
tion  from  the  first  census  of  1790,  until  the  last  census  of  1880,  as  follows : 

TABLE  XV.     POSITION  OF  THE  CENTRE  OF  POPULATION. 


Date. 

North 
Latitude. 

West 

Longitude. 

APPROXIMATE  LOCATION  BY  IMPORTANT  TOWNS. 

Westward 
Movements 
By  Decades. 

I790 
I800 

1810 

1820 
l830 

o           / 

39  l6-5 
39  l6-J 
39  "-5 

39    5-7 
3§  57-9 

0                / 

76    I  I.  2 

76    S^.S 

77  37-2 

78  33-o 
79  16.9 

23  miles  east  of  Baltimore,  Maryland, 
1  8  miles  west  of  Baltimore,  Maryland,     . 
40  miles  northwest  by  west  of  Washing 
ton,  District  of  Columbia,    .... 
1  6  miles  north  of  Woodstock,  Virginia,   . 
19    miles    west-southwest    of   Moorfield, 
W^est  Virginia,       

Miles. 

41 

36 
50 

id 

1840 

39    2-o 

80  18.0 

1  6  miles  south  of  Clarksburg,  West  Vir- 
Sfinia, 

•j? 

rcr 

1850 

3s  59-° 

81  19.0 

23  miles  southeast  of  Parkersburg,  West 
Virginia,       

jj 
ere 

1860 
1870 
1880 

39    o-4 
39  I2-o 
39    4-1 

82  48.8 
§3  35-7 
§4  39-7 

20  miles  south  of  Chillicothe,  Ohio,    . 
48  miles  east  by  north  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
8  miles  west  by  south  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

Total,      

81 
42 
58 

4.^7 

TO/ 

SOCIAL  STATISTICS.  689 

The  author  confesses  his  inability  to  apply  the  figures  of  this  table  to  the 
elucidation  of  any  social  or  political  problem.  They  may  be  a  treasure  for 
future  metaphysical  investigation,  in  weighing  or  computing  the  influences 
of  the  individual  mental  forces  of  our  population,  converging  to  and  radiating 
from  the  common  centre  of  the  mental  forces  of  the  whole  people ! 

There  are  two  values  to  be  appreciated  in  the  matter  of  census-taking. 
The  first  is  that  which  has  reference  to  social  statistics,  and  the  second  that 
which  has  reference  to  the  apportionment  of  representatives  among  the  peo 
ple.  The  one  is  broadly  scientific  and  the  other  is  exclusively  political. 

As  to  the  first,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  vast  extension  of  our  system 
of  railway  and  telegraph,  the  dash  of  our  people  across  prairies  and  moun 
tain  ranges,  overcoming  all  seeming  impediments,  and  regardless  of  all  res 
ervations,  the  discovery  of  rich  deposits  of  iron,  coal,  silver,  gold,  copper, 
and  other  materials,  the  enlarging  of  the  industries  occasioned  by  these 
discoveries,  and  the  multiplication  and  development  of  wealth  make  the 
census  of  1880,  which  illustrates  this  progress,  a  marvel  of  completeness  and 
a  reservoir  of  information.  For  the  purpose  of  studying  political  and  social 
economy,  or  sociology  in  any  form,  all  the  generalizations  which  philosophy 
would  draw  by  induction  and  comparison  of  facts  have  been  made  possible 
by  the  returns  of  this  tenth  census.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten,  that  amid 
the  changes  of  parties  and  the  devastation  of  war,  referred  to  at  length  in 
former  chapters,  we  have  grown  up  a  new  country  and  almost  a  new  class 
of  inhabitants.  We  have  been  careless  of  registering  births  and  deaths. 
We  have  no  elaborate  tables  of  diseases  and  longevities,  and  some  phases  of 
social  disorder  have  been  neglected,  but  the  time  is  coming  at  the  end  of  our 
eleven  decades,  when  full  and  exact  information  respecting  them  will  be 
demanded  by  the  people  with  clamorous  urgency,  —  not  merely  that  we  may 
be  prepared  for  the  consideration  of  social  problems,  but  that  we  may  be 
advised  of  the  magnitude  of  the  population,  and  also  of  the  intelligence  of 
the  country  which  is  the  foundation  of  our  representative  system.  Without 
an  exact  knowledge  of  our  country  and  its  resources,  who  can  educate,  and 
who  can  legislate  ?  Never  was  there  a  greater  demand  than  at  present  for 
men  trained  in  statistical  facts  and  history.  Their  study  leads  to  general 
justice  as  well  as  to  the  advancement  of  truth.  They  are  codes  of  jurispru 
dence  and  litanies  of  learning. 

The  close  of  the  second  decade  of  this  book  brought  us  into  the  centennial 
year.  Our  immense  war  debt  had  been  largely  reduced.  The  burdens  of 
taxation  were  gradually  being  lightened.  Our  financial  system,  with  its 
rank  issues  of  paper  money,  was  being  reformed.  These  were  signs  of  prog 
ress.  They  presented  the  American  people  to  the  world, —  not  in  the  light 
of  decadence,  either  in  their  commerce  or  domestic  progress,  but,  in  spite  of 
all  restrictive  laws,  in  spite  of  warlike  combinations,  in  spite  of  the  great 


6pO  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

distraction  among  our  states,  in  spite  of  our  unexampled  bloody  conflict,  as 
having  been  lifted  up  by  our  progressive  elements  upon  a  higher  plane  of 
national  existence.  From  1790  to  1880  our  rate  of  decennial  increase  of 
population  was  almost  uniform.  It  has  scarcely  ever  been  less  than  thirty 
per  centum,  except  between  1860  and  1870,  when  it  was  only  twenty-two 
and  one-half  per  centum.  If  the  former  ratios  are  maintained  during  the 
next  two  decades, —  and  they  have  been  as  high  as  thirty-six  per  centum  from 
1840  to  1850, —  who  can  measure  the  magnitude  of  interests  involved  at  the 
end  of  the  present  century,  with  a  hundred  millions  of  people,  and  with  a 
restless  population  steadily  moving  westward  and  southward,  filling  up  vast 
arable  spaces  of  the  continent,  and  developing  its  great  resources.  It  must 
also  be  remembered  that  hardly  one-fourth  of  our  vast  territory  of  three  mil 
lions  of  square  miles  is  under  cultivation.  It  cannot  be  forgotten  that  by 
the  acquisition  of  Louisiana,  under  Democratic  auspices,  our  empire  over 
leaped  the  Mississippi;  and  that  by  the  annexation  of  Texas  in  1845,  the 
Texas  cession  of  1850,  and  our  Mexican  acquisition,  all  under  the  same 
auspices,  there  was  added  a  domain  nearly  equal  to  the  states  north  of  the 
line  of  the  Ohio,  and  east  of  the  Mississippi.  In  other  words,  the  United 
States  of  1800  was  a  country  only  about  one-third  as  large  in  domain  as  it  is 
to-day.  How  is  this  empire  inhabited  ?  By  whom  ?  What  are  their  occu 
pations,  productions,  and  resources?  These  questions  are  answered  in  the 
Census  Reports. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  here  even  a  summary  of  the  contents  of  the  sev 
eral  large  volumes  which  include  the  returns  of  the  census  of  1880,  thus  far 
published.  From  the  industrial  statistics,  however,  a  few  important  figures 
may  be  selected.  In  1850,  the  number  of  manufacturing  establishments  in 
the  United  States  was  said  to  be  123,029  ;  in  1860,  there  were  140,433  ;  and  in 
1870,  252,148;  in  1880,  there  appears  to  have  been  no  more  than  253,840. 
The  trifling  increase  in  the  number  of  establishments  during  the  decade  after 
1870  is  no  indication  of  retarded  progress.  But  it  indicates  the  tendency  of 
the  larger  establishments  to  swallow  up  the  smaller  ones.  This  suggests  a 
serious  question.  In  1850,  the  capital  invested  in  manufactures  was  returned 
as$5335245'35I  ;  in  1860,  as  $1,009,855,715;  in  1870,35  $2,118,208,769; 
and  in  1880,  as  $2,790,223,506.  The  number  of  persons  employed  in  manu 
facturing  establishments  was  returned  for  the  respective  years  as  follows  :  for 
l85°>  958>°79;  for  l86o>  I>3II?246;  for  1870,  2,053,996;  for  1880,  2,738,- 
950.  In  1880,  the  total  population  so  employed  was  composed  of  the  follow 
ing  persons  :  181,918  children;  531,753  females  over  fifteen  years;  and 
2,025,279  males  over  sixteen  years.  In  1850,  the  wages  paid  in  such  estab 
lishments  amounted  to  $236,755,464  ;  in  1860,  $378,878,966  ;  in  1870,  $755,- 
584,343  ;  and  in  1880,  $947,919,674.  That  is,  in  1880,  the  weekly  wages 
paid  for  each  working  man,  woman,  and  child  was  about  $6.65,  or  $1.11  a 


FEDERAL  TRADE  AND  TARIFF  RESTRICTIONS.  691 

day.  The  average  earnings  of  the  males  over  sixteen  years  of  age  was 
probably  about  $1.18  a  day,  for  a  full  year.  The  materials  consumed  were 
valued  in  1850  at  $555,174,320;  in  1860,  at  $1,031,605,092;  in  1870,  at 
$2,488,427,242  ;  and  in  1880,  at  $3,394,340,029.  The  products  in  1850 
were  valued  at  $1,019,109,616;  in  1860,  at  $1,885,861,676;  in  1870,  at 
$4,232,325,442  ;  and  in  1880,  at  $5,369,667,706.  By  deducting  the  value  of 
the  materials  used,  and  the  wages  paid,  from  the  value  of  the  products,  the 
reader  will  find  that  for  the  year  1880  there  was  a  return  of  $1,027,408,003 
to  the  capital  sum  of  $2,790,223,506  invested  that  year  in  our  manufacturing 
business,  which  is  equal  to  nearly  thirty-seven  per  centum  of  the  capital. 
These  figures  also  suggest  a  serious  question,  —  one  which  the  author  has 
most  earnestly  discussed  over  and  over  again  in  Congress,  at  almost  every 
session,  during  the  past  three  decades.  It  is  involved  in  the  tariff  question  ; 
and  it  is  the  key  to  the  solution  of  that  question. 

It  cannot  be  ignored  that  the  changes  in  the  law  or  its  interpretation,  are 
more  or  less  influential  in  changing  economic  situations.  The  prosperity  of 
the  country  may  depend  on  a  tariff  schedule.  A  law  of  Congress  may  affect 
transportation  to  sea-board  and  inland.  The  sale  of  our  farm  products 
abroad  depends  on  railroad  freights  and  international  reciprocity.  Depres 
sions  in  business  are  relieved  and  products  are  brought  to  market,  under 
conditions  that  are  quasi  if  not  wholly  political.  Increased  cost  of  trans 
portation  adds,  of  course,  to  the  cost  of  bread  and  meat.  The  consumer 
pays  the  cost.  A  mite  of  difference  in  cost  of  transportation  may  make  or 
unmake  a  market.  But  the  grand  burden  upon  productive  labor  is  not 
revealed  in  the  pages  of  the  Census  Reports.  It  consists  in  our  unwise  restric 
tive  legislation  upon  commerce  in  ships  and  interchanges  between  nations. 
When  we  forbid  free  buying  we  stop  free  selling.  Our  policy  is  not  yet 
liberalized.  The  recent  decades  would  show  more  thrift  and  increase  in  the 
wealth  of  our  nation,  if  there  had  been  more  repealing  of  customs  duties  and 
fewer  statutory  restraints  imposed  upon  the  natural  energies  of  the  people. 

In  this  quickening  of  the  national  pulse,  —  this  grand  transformation  of 
wildernesses  into  domains  of  enterprise  and  activity,  one  cannot  forget  how 
much  government,  and  especially  political  parties,  have  to  do  in  the  forma 
tion  and  development  of  the  condition  of  a  country,  and  its  occupations  and 
their  changes.  A  law  of  Congress  may  divert  industry  from  one  occupation 
to  another,  and  thus  enhance  or  decrease  the  value  of  such  occupation  as  an 
instrument  of  economy  and  progress,  or  ruin.  In  this  connection,  abundant 
illustration  may  be  found  in  our  tariff  and  revenue  laws.  The  census  of 
1880  reveals  the  fact,  that  in  proportion  to  the  same  number  of  milliners  and 
dressmakers  the  previous  census  year,  this  class  has  become  more  numerous 
in  the  ratio  of  2.21  to  i  ;  button-makers,  2.00  to  i  ;  shirtmakers,  2.9  to  i  ; 
sewing-machine  operators,  1.78  to  i  ;  launderers  and  laundresses,  1.37  to  i  ; 


692  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

silk-mill  operators,  4.1  to  i  ;  cotton  and  woolen  mill  operatives,  each  as  i.io 
to  i  ;  jewelers,  as  i.io  to  i  ;  and  dentists,  as  1.13  to  i.  A  thousand  other 
illustrations  are  deducible,  so  that  we  may  infer  from  a  few  indicia,  —  as 
Macaulay  did  respecting  certain  matters  connected  with  social  life  in  the  time 
of  the  Stuarts, — what  the  business  of  the  country  is  in  all  its  ramifications. 
Our  farmers  have  increased  relatively  in  the  ratio  of  only  i  .02  to  i ,  although 
small  farms  have  not  been  merged  into  the  greater.  Labor  has  been  econo 
mized,  and  proprietors  have  remained  and  subsisted  upon  their  farms,  with 
such  labor  as  might  be  saved.  In  farming,  manufacturing,  and  mining,  pro 
duction  exceeds  the  home  demands ;  therefore,  to  maintain  free  labor,  there 
must  soon  be  free  commerce  in  free  ships. 

The  farm  is  the  foundation  of  our  varied  industries.  The  national  do 
main  is  the  grand  source  of  our  prosperity.  Including  Alaska  and  its 
islands,  that  domain  is  estimated  at  3,586,006  square  miles,  or  2,295,043,340 
acres.  Of  this  area,  1,589,900,800  acres  were  acquired  by  the  purchases 
mentioned  in  a  previous  chapter,  at  a  cost  of  $88,157,389.98.  The  Alaska 
addition  of  369,529,600  acres,  at  a  cost  of  $7,200,000,  was  made  under  a 
Republican  administration.  For  all  the  other  additions,  the  Democratic 
party  is  entitled  to  the  credit.  The  title  to  the  lands  thus  acquired  was 
vested  in  the  general  government,  as  a  public  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people.  Besides  these  lands,  the  general  government  acquired  title  to  259,- 
171,787  acres  of  domain,  with  the  like  trust,  by  cessions  from  the  states  of 
Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  New-York,  Connecticut,  and 
Massachusetts,  making  a  grand  total  of  1,849,072,587  acres  of  public  land 
acquisitions.  It  is  estimated  that  on,  June  30,  1880,  there  remained  1,270,- 
708,038  acres  of  these  lands,  subject  to  disposition  by  the  general  govern 
ment,  of  which  204,802,711  acres  were  surveyed.  Alaska  is  included  in 
this  estimate.  Deducting  unearned  grants  to  railroads,  estimated  at  no,- 
000,000  acres ;  private  land  claims,  patented  and  unpatented,  estimated  at 
80,000,000  acres ;  and  military  and  Indian  reservations,  estimated  at  157,- 
35^952  acres,  the  total  public  domain  undisposed  of  on  that  date  was 
about  1,160,708,038  acres;  or,  in  the  language  of  the  official  report  on  our 
public  domain,  an  area  "  equal  to  7,254,425  homesteads  of  160  acres  each." 
From  these  figures  it  would  appear  that  up  to  June  30,  1880,  about  578,- 
364»549  acres  of  public  land  had  been  disposed  of  by  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  The  official  estimate  is  547,754,483  acres.  Up  to  that  date 
the  net  receipts  to  the  treasury,  from  sales  for  cash  and  from  fees  and 
commissions  on  account  of  the  disposition  of  the  lands,  amounted  to  $208,- 
°59'657-I4'  of  which  $7,356,808.03  was  paid  to  certain  states,  on  account 
of  certain  percentages  allowed  by  law  on  receipts  for  the  lands  sold  within 
their  borders. 

Our  public  land  account  on  July  i,  1880,  is  officially  stated  as  follows : 


THE  PUBLIC  LANDS.  693 

For  purchases  and  cessions,     .......       $88,157,389  98 

For  surveying  and  disposition,          .         .         .         .         .         46,563,302  07 

For  purchases  of  the  Indian  occupancy  title,    .         .         .        187,328,903  91 

Total  cost,     ....  ...     $322,049,595  96 

Net  cash  receipts, 200,702,849  n 

Cost  of  public  lands  in  excess  of  receipts,         .         .         .     $121,346,74685 

The  cost  up  to  that  date,  including  purchase,  acquisition  of  Indian  title,  ex 
penses  of  survey,  and  of  disposition  of  lands,  was  about  17^  cents  per  acre. 
The  public  benefit  is  incalculable. 

The  reader  would  like  to  know  how  this  public  land  trust  has  been 
guarded,  and  for  what  purposes  the  public  domain  of  the  people  has  been 
disposed  of.  The  following  figures — which  are  the  most  important  items — 
will  give  an  idea  on  this  subject.  They  cover  a  period  commencing  with 
the  origin  of  our  government,  and  ending  on  June  30,  1880 : 

ACRES. 

Pre-emptions  of  160  acres  each,  and  cash  sales,        .         .         .  169,832,564 

Military  and  naval  service  land  bounties,          ....  61,028,430 

Homesteads  of  160  acres,  more  or  less, 55,667,044 

Farms  under  graduation  act, 25,696,419 

Grants  for  support  of  schools  and  colleges,      ....  78,659,439 

Grants  to  states  for  internal  improvements,       ....  7,806,554 

Grants  to  states  of  swamp  and  overflowed  lands,      .         .         .  69,206,522 

Grants  to  railroad  corporations,  patented,         ....  45,650,026 

Grants  for  canals  and  military  wagon-roads,    ....  5,725,113 

Entered  under  timber-culture  act,    ......  9,346,660 

If  the  reader  will  refer  to  Table  XLIII.,  in  the  Compendium  of  the  Tenth 
Census,  he  can  compute,  by  excluding  the  area  of  the  old  thirteen  states  and 
of  Tennessee  and  Texas,  how  much  of  the  above  acreage  has  gone  into 
farms.  In  1880  the  total  acreage  of  our  farms  was  536,081,835  acres.  A 
hasty  glance  down  the  table  will  show  that  more  than  half  of  this  acreage  is 
in  states  and  territories  carved  out  of  ceded  and  acquired  lands.  In  other 
words,  under  the  Democratic  policy  of  acquiring  new  territory  for  the  peo 
ple,  our  great  farming  interests  have  been  extended  from  the  Alleghany 
Mountains  to  the  Pacific  Ocean ;  and  notwithstanding  the  extravagant  Re 
publican  administration  of  our  national  land  trust,  there  still  remains  an  area 
sufficient  for  between  six  and  seven  million  homesteads, —  homes  and  support 
for  thirty-five  millions  of  people  more  than  are  now  provided  for.  In  1850 
our  farm  acreage  was  293,560,614  acres;  in  1860  it  was  407,212,538;  in 
1870  it  was  407,735,041;  and  in  1880  it  was  536,081,835.  In  1850  our 
farm  acreage  of  unimproved  land,  included  in  the  above,  was  180,528,000; 
in  1860  it  was  244,101,818  ;  in  1870  it  was  218,813,942,  and  in  1880  it  was 


694  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

251,310,793.  Is  not  this  making  glad  the  waste  places  of  our  prosperous 
land  ?  How  much  greater  would  have  been  our  agricultural  development, 
if  peace  had  reigned  from  1860  to  1870?  The  retardment  is  marked  by  the 
figures  above  given.  The  greater  portion  of  our  agricultural  development 
is  due  to  the  pre-emption  and  military  bounty  system,  both  Democratic 
measures.  The  first  pre-emption  law  was  passed  on  March  3,  1801.  Up  to 
1841,  sixteen  acts  were  passed  for  the  improvement  of  this  system  of  secur 
ing  the  soil  to  the  actual  tiller.  Any  head  of  family,  widow,  or  single  man 
over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  who  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  or  has 
declared  an  intention  to  become  a  citizen,  may  secure  160  acres  of  public 
land  under  this  system,  at  a  nominal  price,  wherever  it  is  open  for  settle 
ment. 

The  homestead  system  was  formulated  as  a  political  issue  by  the  Free 
Soil  Democracy  in  1852.  In  a  national  convention  held  that  year  at  Pitts- 
burg,  they  declared  that  the  public  land  should  be  granted  free  of  cost,  in 
limited  quantities  to  the  people  ;  and  that  it  should  not  be  sold  to  individuals 
or  granted  to  corporations.  During  the  next  ten  years,  various  efforts  were 
made  to  pass  a  homestead  law.  Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  was  one 
of  the  original  promoters  of  the  system  that  was  finally  adopted.  In  its 
crude  state  it  encountered  much  opposition,  being  hampered  with  proposed 
grants  of  enormous  areas  of  public  land  to  the  new  states.  President 
Buchanan,  in  vetoing  one  bill,  reminded  Congress  that  the  old  states,  which 
had  ceded  a  large  domain,  and  which  had  aided  the  government  to  acquire 
so  much  of  its  public  land,  had  an  interest  in  these  lands  that  should  not 
be  overlooked.  That  bill  was  also  objectionable  in  that  it  disfavored  for 
eigners  who  came  to  make  a  home  in  our  country.  Mr.  Buchanan  men 
tioned  several  other  objectionable  features,  and  the  bill  failed. 

Finally,  in  1862,  another  homestead  bill  passed  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  by  a  vote  of  107  to  1 6,  and  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  33  to  7.  On 
May  20,  1862,  President  Lincoln  affixed  his  signature  to  this  bill,  and  it 
became  a  law.  Since  that  time,  over  fifty-five  million  acres  of  the  public 
domain  have  been  entered  under  the  homestead  law,  which  gives  free  to  the 
actual  settler  160  acres. 

The  Democratic  and  Republican  parties  are  entitled  to  divide  honors  on 
the  establishment  of  the  railroad  land  grant  system,  but  not  in  respect  to  the 
administration  of  that  system.  The  grant  to  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad, 
in  1850,  was  the  first  large  one.  It  gave  alternate  sections  of  640  acres, 
within  six-mile  limits  on  each  side  of  the  track.  After  July,  1862,  the 
grants  to  the  Pacific  and  other  railroads  grew,  and  grew,  until  from  six  miles 
on  each  side,  the  limits  were  extended  to  ten,  twenty,  forty,  and  even  fifty 
miles  on  each  side  of  the  railroad  !  For  this  excess  of  liberality  the  grantees 
owe  no  gratitude  to  the  Democratic  party.  The  latter  party  has  long  since 
called  a  halt  in  such  an  extravagant  and  riotous  breach  of  trust  in  regard  to 


RESULT  OF  THE  LAST  APPORTIONMENT. 


695 


the  "  heritage  of  the  people."  Undoubtedly  the  country  has  been  greatly 
benefited  by  the  extension  of  railroads,  which  this  extravagant  government 
aid  made  possible.  The  land  grant  railroads  have  connected  the  landless 
with  the  lands,  and  given  an  outlet  to  the  products  of  millions  of  acres, 
which  would  otherwise  not  have  been  reclaimed.  Had  the  grants  been  con 
fined  to  necessary  aids,  the  same  benefits  would  have  accrued  to  the  people, 
and  much  corruption  and  national  scandal  been  avoided.  Some  efforts  have 
been  made  in  Congress  to  reclaim  unearned  railroad  grants  ;  and  it  is  due  to 
the  people  that  these  efforts  should  be  continued  until  a  successful  settlement 
is  effected.  This  may  be  done  without  injustice  to  grantees,  and  without 
retarding  that  national  progress,  of  which  the  figures  of  the  tenth  census 
and  this  sketch  of  our  public  domain  will  give  an  outline  to  the  reader. 

The  primary  object  of  the  census  is  the  apportionment  of  power.  It 
was  for  this  purpose  that  the  framers  of  the  Federal  Constitution  incor 
porated  in  it  a  peremptory  requirement  that  a  decennial  census  should  be 
taken.  When  the  census  returns  of  1880  showed  the  population  of  the 
country  to  be  50,155,783,  Congress  addressed  itself  to  the  task  of  re 
arranging  the  apportionment  of  Representatives.  The  work  was  begun  in 
the  Forty-sixth  Congress.  It  was  completed  in  the  first  session  of  the  Forty- 
seventh  Congress.  The  plan  proposed  in  the  Forty-sixth  Congress  by  the 
author  was  finally  adopted,  although  the  number  of  Representatives  which 
he  suggested,  307,  was  changed  finally  to  325.  The  author's  plan  was  not 
altogether  new.  Although  it  involved  a  conflict  with  the  census  office,  it 
works  harmoniously.  He  proposed  that  after  Congress  should  have  fixed 
upon  the  number  of  members  of  the  Lower  House,  the  whole  population, 
omitting  that  of  the  territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  should  be  a 
dividend  for  that  number,  and  the  quotient  should  be  the  basis  of  representa 
tion  for  each  member.  But,  on  the  division  of  the  population  of  the  states 
so  as  to  ascertain  the  number  of  members  for  each  state,  there  would  be  a 
remainder.  Was  this  to  be  unrepresented  ?  The  loss  in  the  number  of  mem 
bers  corresponding  to  the  fractions  in  the  several  states  was  to  be  compen 
sated  for,  as  nearly  as  might  be,  by  assigning  to  the  states  having  the  largest 
fractions  an  additional  member  each,  so  as  to  make  up  the  whole  number  of 
Representatives.  According  to  this  plan,  the  law  making  an  apportionment 
of  Representatives  in  Congress  among  the  several  states  under  the  tenth 
census,  approved  Feb.  25,  1882,  provided  that  after  the  3d  of  March,  1883, 
the  House  of  Representatives  should  be  composed  of  325  members,  to  be 
apportioned  as  follows  : 


Alabama, 8 

Arkansas, 5 

California, 6 

Colorado, I 


Connecticut,        ......  4 

Delaware, I 

Florida, 2 

Georgia, .     .  10 


696 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Illinois, 20 

Indiana, •  13 

Iowa, •  ',.     •  ii 

Kansas, 7 

Kentucky, n 

Louisiana, 6 

Maine, -     .  4 

Maryland, 6 

Massachusetts,    .......  12 

Michigan,       .      .      .     ...     .     .  n 

Minnesota, 5 

Mississippi, 7 

Missouri,        14 

Nebraska, 3 

Nevada, I 


New  Hampshire, 2 

New  Jersey, 7 

New- York, 34 

North  Carolina, 9 

Ohio, 21 

Oregon, i 

Pennsylvania,     ......  28 

Rhode  Island,     .     .     ...     .  2 

South  Carolina,       ..«.,..  7 

Tennessee,     .     .     .     .     .v  •     .  10 

Texas, V    .     .  n 

Vermont, 2 

Virginia, 10 

West  Virginia,   ......  4 

Wisconsin, 9 


The  law  further  provided  that  whenever  a  new  state  is  admitted  to  the 
Union,  the  Representative  or  Representatives  assigned  to  it  shall  be  in 
addition  to  the  number  325  ;  and  that  in  each  state  the  number  of  Represent 
atives  to  which  such  state  may  be  entitled  in  the  Forty-eighth  and  each  subse 
quent  Congress,  shall  be  elected  from  districts  composed  of  contiguous  terri 
tory,  and  containing,  as  nearly  as  practicable,  an  equal  number  of  inhabitants. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  dominant  political  element  which  is  sup 
posed  to  reside  in  the  Democratic  party,  and  the  dominant  portion  of  that 
party  which  is  supposed  to  reside  in  the  Southern  States,  have  become  dom 
inant  under  a  fair  census  of  the  population,  by  the  constitutional  addition  of 
electors  for  President  and  Vice-President,  and  Representatives  in  Congress, 
whereby  this  ascendency  has  been  greatly  secured.  When,  therefore,  such 
statesmen  as  Mr.  Blaine  attribute  too  much  power  to  the  South  in  propor 
tion  to  the  votes  cast,  and  refer  to  that  section  as  a  possibly  controlling  element 
in  our  politics ;  when  such  an  accomplished  writer  inveighs  against  such 
domination,  after  the  methods  revealed  in  the  early  chapters  of  this  book, 
it  is  well  to  understand  the  very  basis  of  our  representative  government.  It 
is  just  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  right  to  representation  in  Congress  and 
in  the  Electoral  College  does  not  lie  in  voting,  but  in  population ;  that  all 
except  Indians  not  taxed,  are  counted ;  that  negroes  are  not  counted  by  the 
three-fifths  rule  as  persons,  and  two-fifths  as  property ;  but  that  with  other 
revolutions,  their  equal  status  has  been  evolved  ;  that  votes  are  not  the  test  of 
power  or  its  division  among  states  or  sections  ;  —  and  that  it  is  upon  the  popu 
lation  that  the  splendid  structure  of  the  Federal  system  is  founded. 

The  theory  of  our  government  is  vindicated,  in  spite  of  all  adverse  criti 
cism,  in  this  one  fact,  that  in  the  Federal  system  no  state  is  great  and  no  state 
small.  Each  has  equal  representation  in  the  Senate.  All  are  counted  in 


OUR  UNIQUE  SYSTEM.  697 

certain  relations  as  states,  irrespective  of  population.  But  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  where  the  people  are  most  nearly  represented,  there  is  every 
ten  years  a  power  to  rectify  any  inequality  of  states.  Let  us  be  thankful  for 
a  peaceably  ordained  constitutional  revolution.  It  moves  like  the  earth  in  its 
orbit,  with  happy  alternation  of  grateful  night,  prolific  day,  and  benignant 
seasons.  If  the  smaller  states  complain  of  being  overbalanced  in  the  House, 
we  must  remember  that  in  the  Senate  and  the  Electoral  College  their  equi 
librium  is  maintained,  substantially  and  potentially.  Let  them  bow  grace 
fully  to  the  inevitable.  If  larger  states,  or  any  number  of  states,  lose  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  each,  the  Senate  by  the  terms  of  the  Constitution  is  unalter 
able  for  them  also,  and  their  voice  is  that  of  an  equal  and  of  a  power  in  this 
body.  If  in  other  states  there  is  to  be  an  increase,  let  us  proudly  remember 
that  it  is  the  increase  of  the  country  and  of  the  popular  branch  which  has 
not  always  kept  pace  with  the  senatorial  increase.  It  is  the  growth  of  our 
system  in  all  its  far-reaching  influences  by  a  law  greater  than  the  Constitution. 
These  changes  should  not  be  left  to  chance  for  their  representation.  So  that 
whether  the  states  be  great  or  small,  West  or  East,  North  or  South,  their 
relative  equality  and  equal  dignity  is  vindicated.  "  Self-reverent  each,  and 
reverencing  each  ;  distinct  in  individuality  ;  but  like  each  other,  even  as  those 
who  love." 

There  is  in  the  legislative  organisms  of  no  other  country  any  semblance  to 
the  American  system  of  enumeration  and  popular  representation.  Opulence, 
dignities,  titles,  vassalage,  municipalities,  and  classes  have  had  their  obse 
quious  representatives  in  all  ages  and  countries,  and  now  and  then,  by  some 
wild  convulsion,  the  common  people,  in  a  fierce,  unequal  way,  have  had  their 
will  expressed  in  legislation  ;  but  as  a  general  rule  the  people  have  been  un 
represented,  either  because  of  an  unfair  local  distribution  of  the  representation 
or  by  the  suppression  of  the  franchise.  Our  Federal  system  of  representation 
is  in  every  sense  republican  in  fact,  form,  and  spirit.  What  is  representation 
in  a  political  sense?  Rousseau  has  denied  its  legitimacy  as  an  agent  of 
society ;  Guizot  combats  the  theory  that  individual  will  is  the  source  of 
sovereignty,  and  holds  to  the  doctrine  that  no  individual  will  has  in  itself  any 
right  to  power  except  it  conform  to  reason.  These  metaphysical  distinctions 
have  been  spun  into  such  a  thin  fibre  that  by  one  side  it  has  been  held  that 
when  you  have  supplied  yourself  with  a  representative  you  are  no  longer  free. 
You  have  lost  your  sovereignty  over  your  will,  and  given  it  a  master.  The 
other  side  retorts  :  "  Your  personal  will  is  insufficient  for  order  and  security. 
You  employ  a  servant.  He  is  your  slave.  You  give  him  suffrage,  only  to 
execute  your  sovereign  will." 

So  that,  whether  we  individually  consent  to  that  which  our  deputy  does 
or  omits,  we  are  bound  by  his  act  as  representing  us.     Even  the  minority,  by 
the  theory  of  our  system,  impliedly  consents  to  the  will  of  the  majority,  and 
thus  there  is  practical  unanimity.     This  is  the  refinement  of  our  system. 
44 


698  THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 

But  it  may  be  asked  whether  with  this  popular  basis  and  its  grand  results, 
we  have  not  the  same  greed  for  gain,  ambition  to  excel,  love  of  rule,  desire 
for  intrigue,  and  play  of  unruly  prejudice,  jealousy,  and  passion  which  have 
made  the  history  of  other  nations  tragical  even  to  their  decline  and  fall. 
There  can  be  but  one  answer  to  this  question.  Intelligence  and  morality  are 
the  only  conservative  elements  of  a  republic. 

While  we  remain  an  intelligent,  moral  people,  who  shall  compete  with  us 
in  our  abundant  harvests,  our  rich  balances  of  trade,  our  increase  in  com 
merce  and  expansion  of  labor,  our  influx  of  precious  metals,  and  our  inex 
haustible  mines  of  coal,  iron,  copper,  gold,  and  silver?  Our  exportations 
and  importations,  our  marvelous  immigration,  our  stupendous  inter-state 
communications  and  their  incomes  and  outgoes  by  rail,  canal,  lake,  river, 
and  sea,  our  inventive  faculty,  with  its  miracles  of  manufacture,  and  above 
all  and  beyond  all,  our  movement  westward  from  ever-renewing  centres  of  a 
restless  population,  which  in  a  century  has  added  fifty  millions  of  souls  to  our 
active  energies,  are  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  nations. 

What  is  the  vitalizing  and  ennobling  principle  of  our  civilization,  and  the 
warrant  fot  its  preservation?  That  warrant  is  in  the  virtue,  schools,  and  in 
telligence  of  the  whole  people,  who,  receiving  their  broad  inheritance  en 
dowed  in  the  eons  past  by  geology  and  its  changes  with  an  opulence  of 
fertility  and  wealth,  have  transmuted  it  beyond  the  dreams  of  alchemy  into 
manifold  and  magnificent  values,  and  spread  their  domain  since  1790  from  a 
little  strip  along  the  Atlantic  into  continental  proportions,  reaching  from  sea 
to  sea.  That  principle  of  civilization  is  our  representative  system,  which 
strikes  no  name,  however  humble  or  dependent,  from  the  peerage  of  the 
American  Republic. 

England  may  boast  of  her  rule  in  Asia,  Africa,  and  Ireland,  and  proudly 
echo  the  praise  which  her  laureate  lavishes  on  her,  as  a  land  of  settled  gov 
ernment,  of  just  and  old  renown,  and  of  freedom  broadening  slowly  from 
precedent  to  precedent ;  but  she  has  no  popular  representation  in  her  Parlia 
ment  founded  on  the  equal  rights  of  all  the  people.  It  was  left  to  her  Ameri 
can  colonies,  a  century  ago,  in  this  new  hemisphere,  by  a  written  constitution, 
to  erect  a  muniment,  high  and  splendid,  around  the  temple  of  liberty,  and 
to  guard  it  with  a  unity  and  force  which  the  division  and  variety  made  by 
mountain  and  river,  and  the  strong  passions  of  hostile  armies,  could  neither 
sever  nor  overcome.  Within  that  muniment,  our  composite  society  is  assured 
of  protection,  stability,  and  progress.  In  rearing  it  every  one  has  builded 
over  against  his  own  house,  as  in  the  days  of  dismantled  Jerusalem  ;  so  that 
through  the  whole  mass  of  our  living  people,  freedom  broadens  decennially, 
not  from  precedent  to  precedent,  but  like  the  bole  of  the  oak,  by  its  inner 
growth  drawn  from  the  soil,  sun,  and  sky,  into  an  intense  robust  life,  which 
has  defied  the  tempests  of  the  past  century,  and  under  God's  guidance  will 
defy  the  storms  of  centuries  to  come  ! 


THE  MUNIMENTS  OF  PUBLIC  LIBERTY.  699 

It  is  nearly  four  hundred  years  since  Columbus  set  in  the  forehead  of  his 
time  the  jewels  of  Isabella,  the  Catholic.  The  people  whom  she  ruled  saw 
the  sails  of  his  caravel  expand  under  favoring  breezes  from  the  Andalusian 
strand,  to  find  a  new  continent,  and  found  a  new  empire !  Then  the  red 
man  held  undisputed  barbaric  sway  over  the  vast  regions  now  embraced 
within  our  limits.  Here,  since,  arose  institutions  whose  attractive  forces 
created,  from  out  of  the  loins  of  the  Old  World,  a  nation  of  freemen.  Since 
then,  like  the  oak,  our  greatness  has  expanded,  ring  on  ring.  We  have 
spread  our  boughs  from  sea  to  sea !  Our  country,  with  its  institutions 
of  benevolence  and  learning,  its  wealth,  splendor,  commerce,  and  liberties, 
has  become  the  cynosure  of  all  eyes  and  the  refuge  of  all  lands.  It  is  a 
fitting  tribute  to  our  position,  history,  and  freedom,  that  the  genius  of  re 
publican  France  is,  as  we  write,  sending  to  us  for  exaltation  within  the 
waters  of  our  great  metropolis,  the  image  of  Liberty  lifting  up  a  lighted 
torch,  as  a  beacon  of  promise  and  symbol  of  enlightenment  to  all  who 
traverse  the  broad  seas  and  seek  our  asylum.  It  is  our  duty  to  see  that  the 
emblem  loses  nothing  of  its  splendid  significance.  May  it  never  be  said 
to  us,  as  De  Tocqueville  said  to  France  :  "Are  your  principles  losing 
their  force  by  your  example  ?  Does  your  application  of  them  lead  the 
world  to  doubt  their  truth  ?  Are  your  regenerating  principles  —  the  glory 
and  most  precious  portion  of  your  history — leading  the  nations  to  a  happier 
future,  or  dragging  them  down  after  you  in  moral  degradation  ?  "  With 
vestal  vigilance  let  these  principles  be  ever  watched !  We  need  not  repair 
to  the  golden  urns  of  other  skies  to  re-illume  the  light  which  shines  like 
the  stars  upon  our  ensign.  The  youthful,  exultant,  and  defiant  spirit  of  Free 
dom  here  enshrined  and  consecrated  fills  the  land  with  a  common  senti 
ment  concerning  the  Republic,  which  is  the  essence  of  patriotism,  and  will 
shed  around  the  splendid  gift  of  our  sister  republic  of  the  Old  World,  not 
the  lurid  glare  which  leads  astray,  but  an  aureole  "  only  not  divine,"  whose 
effulgence  will  make  glad  the  struggling  people  of  all  lands,  aspiring  to  a 
better  future. 


00      £    K 
LU      g    H 

<    3  5 

te  ss 

Q 


«    Q 
H«! 


CL 
< 


en 
W 

in 


INDEX. 


Abolitionists,  their  motto,  50. 

Cause  of  proscription  of,  51. 

Support  of  nullification,  63. 

Vindicated  by  loose  construc 
tion  of  the  preamble  of  the 
Constitution,  36. 

^Abolition  of  slavery,  constitu 
tional  mode  of  accomplish 
ing,  332. 

Abbott,  Josiah  G.,  member 
electoral  commission,  650. 

Proposition  in  the  electoral 

commission,  1877,  655. 
Abell,   E.   A.,   removed    from 
office  by  Gen.  Sheridan,  544. 

Cause  of  removal  of,  544. 
Adams,  Charles  Francis,  advo 
cate  of  measures  to   allay 
slavery  agitation,  28. 

Efforts  in  Thirty-sixth  Con 
gress  to  avert  war,  64. 

Member  Thirty-sixth  Con 
gress,  75. 

Member  committee  of  thirty- 
three,  77. 

Sketch  of,  91. 

As  minister  to  Great  Britain 
takes  part  in  negotiations 
respecting  the  Declaration 
of  Paris,  270-273. 

Instructions  from  Seward  and 

Lincoln,  352-3. 

Adams,  J .  H.,  member  of  South 
Carolina  treaty  commis 
sion  (1860),  110. 

Adams,  John,  causes  of  his  de 
feat  for  the  presidency  by 
Jefferson,  105. 

Course  in  France  respecting 

Continental  paper,  129. 
Adams,  John  Quincy,  secretary 

of  state,  44. 

Adams  Samuel,  statue  of,  26. 
Ad  interim  secretaries,  582-583. 
Aiken,     the    revenue    cutter, 

seizure  of,  146. 

Alabama,  convention  and  or 
dinance  of  secession,  115-116. 

Chooses  delegates  to  Southern 
Congress,  116. 

Treaty  commission,  1860, 116. 

Condition  at  close  of  war,  402. 

Provisional  government,  403. 

Convention  of  1865,  404. 

Ku-Klux  in,  468. 

Part  of  third  military  district 
under  reconstruction  acts, 
512. 

Kegistration  in,  513. 

Constitutional  convention  in, 
1867,  513. 

Constitution,  provisions  of, 
514. 

Conditions  of  admission  of,  to 
representation,  514. 

Financial   condition  of,  1872, 

516. 

"  Alabama,"  the,  sinking  of,  by 
the  Kearsage,  211. 


Alcorn,  James  L.,  Republican 
candidate  for  governor  of 
Miss.,  1869,  529. 
Elected  governor,  1869,  530. 
Elected  U.  S.  senator,  1870, 530. 
Inaugural  address  as  govern 
or,  1870,  531. 
His  idea  of  state  sovereignty, 

531. 

Aldrich,  Cyrus,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  99. 
Alien  Acts  of  1798, 105. 
Aliunde,  653,  658,  660. 
Allen,  Ethan,  statue  of,  26. 
Allen,  Henry  W.,  governor  of 

Louisiana,  1864,  295. 
Allen,  James  C.,  clerk  of  the 

House,  1857,  27. 

Alley,  John  B.,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  90. 
Allison,  Abraham  K.,  governor 

of  Florida,  1865,  419. 
Amendment  of  the   Constitu 
tion,  debate  respecting  power 

of,  January,  1865,  323-325. 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 

51. 
American  Hostile,  225. 

American  "  party,  50. 
Ames,  Adelbert,  service  in  as 
sault  of  Fort  Fisher,  212,  313. 
Appointed   provisional    gov 
ernor  of    Mississippi,    1868, 
527. 
Senator  from  Mississippi,  1870, 

530. 

Elected  governor   of  Missis 
sippi,  1873,  533. 

Course  as  governor  of  Mis 
sissippi  in  1875,  533. 
Amnesty  proposed  by  Garrett 

Davis,  June  9, 1864,  316. 
President    Lincoln's    procla 
mation,  337,  338. 
Classes  excluded,  338,  346. 
President  Johnson's    procla 
mation,  346. 

Classes  excepted,  346,  347. 
Henry  Winter  Davis'  plan  of, 

434. 
President  Johnson's  plan  of, 

4a5. 
Vicissitudes  of  the  question 

of,  595-601. 
Effect   of    delay   of,    in  the 

South,  596. 

Incompleteness  of,  597. 
General  Butler's  bill  for,  595, 

598. 

Position  of    Mr.   Blaine    re 
specting,  1876,  600. 
Established  by  public  senti 
ment,  601. 

Anderson,     Robert,    abandon 
ment  of  Ft.  Moultrie  and  oc 
cupation  of  Ft.  Sumter,  146. 
Declines  to  surrender,  149. 
Attacked,  149. 
Surrenders,  149. 


Anderson,  Thomas  L.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  96. 

Sketch  of,  96. 
Anderson,  John  A.,  297. 
Antietam,  battle  of,  188. 
Anthony,  Henry  B.,  president 
pro  tem.  of  the  Senate,  86. 

Action  in  Senate  Dec.,  1865, 

350. 

Appomattox,  surrender  at,  578. 
Apportionment  of  representa 
tion  the  original  object  of 
the  census,  695. 

The  law  of  1882  respecting 

basis  of,  695,  696. 
Archer,     Stevenson,    member 
House  committee,  1872,  on 
difficulties  in  Louisiana,  557. 
Arkansas,  convention  and  ordi 
nance  of  secession,  119. 

Declaration  of  cause  of  her 
secession,  119. 

Delegates  sent  to  Southern 
Congress,  119. 

Campaign  in  1862, 174. 

Loyal  government  of,  341. 

Legislation  recognizing  same, 
342. 

New  state  government  of,  re 
cognized  by  Johnson,  349. 

Steps  toward  reconstruction 
in,  1864,  436. 

President  Lincoln's  plan  for 
reconstructing,  436. 

Ordinance  of  secession  an 
nulled,  436. 

Destitution  of  her  people  in 
1865,  437. 

Amnesty  act  of,  439. 

Part  of  the  fourth  military 
district  under  the  recon 
struction  acts,  534. 

Provisional  legislature  of, 
forbidden,  April,  1867,  to 
reassemble,  534. 

Registration  in,  534. 

Convention  and  constitution, 
534. 

Fraud  at  ratification  of  con 
stitution,  1867,  534,  535. 

Act  of  Congress  for  readmit 
ting,  535. 

Sui-rendered  by  military  com 
mander  to  civil  authorities, 
535. 

Legislation  of,  1869,  respect 
ing  debt  of,  536. 

Government  of,  1868-1875,  535- 
541. 

Constitution  of,  1874,  540. 

Financial  condition  of,  542. 

Post,  capture  of,  195. 
Arm-in-Arm  convention,  619. 
Army  at  the  polls,  struggle  in 
Congress  for  repeal  of  laws 
permitting,  630-634. 
Army  of  the  United  States,  dis 
qualification    for    commis 
sion  in,  616. 


702 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Arrests,  arbitrary,  233,  224. 
Arthur,  Chester  A.,  nominated 
for  Vice-President   by  the 
Republican  j>arty,  1880,  674. 
Elected  Vice-President,  675. 
Becomes  President,  676. 
Senator  Pendleton's  civil  ser 
vice  reform  bill  the  event  of 
the  administration  of,  676. 
Asboth,    Alexander,    at    Pea 

Ridge,  174. 

Ashe,  Thomas  S.,  candidate  for 
governor  in  North  Carolina, 
1868,  497. 

Ashley,  James  M.,  calls  up  thir 
teenth    amendment  in  the 
House,  Jan.  6, 1865,  321. 
Reports  reconstruction  bill, 

Dec.  20, 1864,  342. 
Presents  articles  of  impeach 
ment  of  President  Johnson, 

Ashmore,   John    D.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  94. 
Sketch  of,  94. 

Assassination  of  President  Lin 
coln,  344. 

President  Garfleld,  76. 
Atlanta,  capture  of,  207. 
Extent  or  operations  for  re 
ducing,  214. 

Attorneys,  iron-clad  oath    ex 
tended  to,  in  United  States 
courts,  615. 
Avery,   William    T.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  95. 
Prisoner   at  Johnson  Island, 

95. 

Baird,  Absalom,  proclaims  mar 
tial   law  in  New  Orleans, 
1864,  431. 
Baker,  E.  D.,  disposition  toward 

compromise,  64. 
Senator     Thirth-sixth     Con 
gress,  72. 
Sketch  of,  90. 
Military  service  and  death  at 

Ball's  Bluff,  164. 

Baker,  William,  removed  from 
office  by  Gen.  Hancock,  549. 
Baldwin,  Abraham,  303. 
Baldwin,  Augustus  C.,  votes  for 
thirteenth  amendment,  326. 
Ball's  Bluff,  battle  of,  164. 
Baltimore,   mob   in,    April  19, 

1861, 152. 
Banishment,  enacted    by    the 

Confederate  Congress,  246. 
Bank,  the  United  States,  142. 
Banks,   National,  act    of   1863, 
establishing  system  of,  141. 
Act  of  1864,  respecting  same, 

142. 
Secretary  Chase's  suggestions, 

142. 

Origin  of  the  system,  142. 
Bank  notes,  national,  141. 
State,  142. 

Issue  of,  secured  by  United 
States  stocks,  suggested  by 
Fillmore,  1849, 143. 
Bankruptcy     act,    repeal    of, 

1878,671. 
Banks  of  issue,  power  of  states 

to  charter,  143, 144. 
Banks,    Nathaniel   P.,   elected 
speaker  of    the  House  of 
Representatives,  50. 
Succeeds  General  Patterson, 

162. 

In  Shenandoah  Valley,  183. 
At  Cedar  Mountain,  187. 
Captures  Port  Hudson,  196. 
Red  River  expedition,  210. 
Proclamation  of,  Jan.  11, 1864, 


Banks,  Nath'l  P.,  general  order 

of,  Feb.  13, 1864,  427. 
Barksdale,    Wm.,    member    of 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
Favoring  secession,  74. 
Present    at  the   Keitt-Grow 

altercation,  76. 
Sketch  of,  97. 

Barnwell,  Robert  W.,  member 
of  treaty  commission  (1860) 
of  South  Carolina,  110. 
Barrow,  Washington,  member 
of  military  league  commis 
sion  of  Tennessee  (1861),  120. 
Bartholdi  statue,  699. 
Basse  Edward,  appointed  judge 

in  Texas,  1867,  573. 
Baxter,  Elisha,  elected  senator 

from  Arkansas,  437. 
Conflict  with  Joseph  Brooks 
for  governorship  of  Arkan 
sas,  537-541. 
Baxter,   Richard,    persecution 

of,  606. 
Bayard,  James  A.,  senator  in 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  71. 
Sketch  of,  71,  87. 
Bayard,  Thomas  A.,  member  of 
committee  on  the  electoral 
count,  637. 

Remarks  by  him  in  the  com 
mittee,  642,  644. 
Member  of  electoral  commis 
sion,  650. 
Proposition  in  the  electoral 

commission,  656. 
Beauregard,  P.  G.  T.,  Confed 
erate  general  in  the  attack 
on  Fort  Sumter,  148, 149. 
Confederate  general  at  Bull 

Run,  154-156. 

Beecher  Henry  Ward,  views 
respecting  restoration  of 
states  to  their  federal  rela 
tions,  570-572. 

Bell,  John,  presidential  candi 
date,  1860,  60,  61. 
Belmont,     Mo.,     Confederates 
attacked    at,    by    General 
Grant,  1861, 163. 
Benjamin,    Judah  P.,   senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  70. 
Sketch  of,  70. 
Attitude  toward  the  Critten- 

den  compromise,  79. 
In  the  Confederate  cabinet,  88. 
In   council   at    Montgomery 
upon  question  of  firing  on 
Fort  Sumter,  April,  1861, 150. 
Bentham,  Jeremy,  queries  re 
specting    utility    of   oath- 
taking,  604. 

Bentonville,  battle  of,  212. 
Berrien,  John  McPherson,  303. 
Big  Bethel,  battle  of,  154. 
Biggerstaff,    Aaron,    Ku-Klux 

outrages  upon,  461,  462. 
Bigler,  William,  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  76. 
Testimony     respecting     the 
committee  of  thirteen,  80. 
Vote  in  committee  of  thir 
teen    on    Jefferson   Davis' 
proposition,  115. 
Bingham,    John    A.,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
His  eloquence  and  ardor,  75. 
Minister  to  Japan,  75. 
Manager  in  the  impeachment 

of  President  Johnson,  585. 
Sketch  of,  585. 
Bingham,   Kinsley  S.,    senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  89. 
Binney,  Hoi'ace,  on  the  right  of 
the  President  to  suspend  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  227. 


Birney,  James  G.,  anti-slavery 
candidate  for  the  presiden 
cy,  1844,  47. 

Black,  Jeremiah  S.,  one  of  the 
counsel  for  Milligan  before 
the  supreme  court,  230. 
Secretary  of  state,  258. 
Effort  to  prevent  foreign  rec 
ognition    of    Confederacy, 
258,  259. 

Counsel  for  President  John 
son  in  impeachment   trial, 
587. 
Speech   before  the   electoral 

commission,  661-663. 
Carpet-baggers  described  by, 

624-626. 

Counsel  representing  Mr.  Til- 
den    before    the    electoral 
commission  in  the  Florida 
case,  655. 
Blackburn,  J.  S.  C.,  speech  of, 

March  2, 1877,  665. 
Elaine,  James  G.,  moves,  June, 
1864,  to  lay  the  Brown  sub 
stitute  for  the  House  re 
construction  bill  on  the 
table,  340. 

Advocates      in      conference 
committee    power    to   use 
army  at  the  polls,  631. 
Secretary  of  state  in   Presi 
dent  Garfield's  cabinet,  675. 
His  genius  for  politics,  675. 
Contrasted      with       Grover 

Cleveland,  683. 

Blair,  Frank  P.,  conference  of, 
with  Jefferson  Davis,  Jan. 
12,  1865,  330,  331. 
Second  visit  of,  to  Richmond 

with  respect  to  peace,  332. 
Blair,  Jacob  B.,  urges  prosecu 
tion  of  the  war,  1865,  314. 
Blair,  Montgomery,  counsel  for 
the  plaintiff  in  error,  in  the 
Cummings  case,  251. 
Blockade  proclaimed,  152. 
Effect  of,  242. 
Opposition,  263,  273. 
Raised,  346. 
Blount,  William,  impeachment 

of,  583. 

Bocock,  Thomas  S.,  attempt  to 
cut  off  debate  on  Lecomp- 
ton,  27,  56. 

Member    Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  72. 

Parliamentary  skill  of,  74. 
Speaker  of   the  Confederate 

Congress,  92. 
Bonham,  Milledge  L.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  94. 
Sketch  of,  94. 
Governor  of  South  Carolina, 

1864,  295. 
Boozer,  Lemuel,  elected  Lieut.- 

Gov.  South  Carolina,  503. 
Border    State    convention     of 

congressmen,  28. 
Boreman,  Arthur  I.,  governor 

of  West  Virginia,  195. 
Boteler,  Alexander  R.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  73. 
Moves  for  the  committee  of 

thirty-three,  73. 
Sketch  of,  93. 

Botts,  John  M.,  leader  of  mod 
erate  Republicans  in  Vir 


ginia,  488. 
ulu 


Bouligney,  J.  E.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  94. 
Sketch  of,  94. 

Boutwell,  George  S.,  discusses 
limits  of  power  to  amend 
the  constitution,  January, 
1865,  323. 


INDEX. 


703 


Boutwell,  George  S.,  member  of 
committee  of  investigation, 
preliminary  to  impeachment 
of  President  Johnson,  581. 
One  of  the  managers  of  the 
impeachment  of  President 
Johnson,  585. 
Sketch  of,  585,  586. 
Boyce,  William    W.,   member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress  from 
South  Carolina,  74. 
Distrustful  of  secession  as  a 

remedy,  74. 
Sketch  of,  94. 

Arraigns  Richmond  govern 
ment      on     state      rights 
grounds,  312. 
Boyd,  Alexander,  murdered  by 

Ku-Klux,  455. 

Boyd,  James,  testimony  of,  re 
specting  the  Ku-Klux,  455. 
Bradley,    Joseph    P.,    chosen 
member    of    the   electoral 
commission,  650. 
Announces  his   vote   in  the 
electoral     commission      in 
the  case  of  Florida,  653. 
Bragg,  Braxton,   campaign  in 

Kentucky,  1862,  191. 
At  Stone  River,  192. 
At  Chattanooga,  202. 
Branch,  Lawrence  O'B.,  mem 
ber  Thirty-sixth    Congress 
from  North  Carolina,  74. 
Distrusts  secession  as  a  cure 

for  Southern  ills,  74. 
Skill  in  debate,  74. 
Sketch  of,  93. 
Confederate  general  at  New- 

bern,  1862, 167. 
Breckenridge  doctrine,  55. 
Breckenridge,  John   C.,  presi 
dential  candidate,1860,  60, 61. 
Senator,     Thirty-sixth    Con- 


Personal  sketch  of,  65. 
Vice-President,  86. 
On  the  South  Carolina  chiv 
alry,  410. 

Brewster,  O.  H.,  election  of,  as 
speaker  in  Louisiana  legis 
lature,  556,  557. 

Briggs  George,  attitude  toward 
the  Crittenden  compromise, 
78. 
Member     Thirty-sixth    Con- 


Briggs,  George  N.,  member  of 
Massachusetts  constitutional 
convention  of  1850,  586. 

Bright,      Jesse     D.,     senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Inclination  toward  the  South, 
72,  89. 

Brooke,  John  M.,  172. 

Brooke,  J.  R.,  in  command  of 
the  city  of  New  Orleans,  568. 

Brooks,  James,  discusses  the 
peace  negotiation,  Jan.  10, 
1865,336. 

Brooks,  Joseph,  conflict  with 
Elisha  Baxter  for  governor 
ship  of  Arkansas,  537-541. 

Brown,    Albert     G.,     senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  69. 
Sketch  of,  69,  88. 
Resigns  as  senator,  114. 
Statement  by,  respecting  af 
fairs  in  Mississippi,  528. 

Brown,  B.  Gratz,  proposes  leg 
islation  deferring  admission 
of  states  to  representation 
until  after  suppression  of 
insurrection,  340. 
Supports  President  Johnson's 
administration,  356. 

Brown,  John,  raid,  50. 


Brown,   John   T.,  member  of 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  95. 
Brown,  Joseph  E.,  proclamation 
as     governor   of    Georgia, 
April  26, 1861,  111. 
Governor  of  Georgia,  1861,294. 
Governor  of  Georgia,  1864, 295. 
His  ability,  296. 
Biographical  sketch  of,  303- 

306. 
Advice  to  the  people,   1865, 

397. 
Brown,     Neil      S.,     candidate 

against  Harris,  1856,  297. 
Brown,  William  G.,  votes  for 
thirteenth  amendment,  326. 
Brownlow,  William  G.,  elected 
governor  of  Tennessee,  295, 
349. 
Proclamation  of,   respecting 

Ku-Klux,  474. 

Buchanan,    Frank,   command 
ing   Confederate  ram   Vir 
ginia,  169. 
Buchanan,   James,  Mr.  Folk's 

secretary  of  state,  47. 
Elected  President,  50. 
His  attempt  to  defend  public 
property  in  the   Southern 
States,  146. 
Buchanan,  J.  Rev.,  driven  away 

by  Ku-Klux,  471. 
Buchanan,  R.  C.,  in  command 
of  the  fifth  military    dis 
trict,  549. 

Buckalew,  Charles  R.,  356. 
Buckingham,    Catharinus    P., 
assistant  secretary  of  war, 
192. 

Buckner,  S.  B.,  Confederate 
defender  at  Fort  Donelson, 
175,  176. 

Buell,  Don  Carlos,  in  command 
department  of  Ohio,  1862, 
175. 

Takes  Bowling  Green,  176. 
At  Shiloh,  177. 

Drives  Bragg  out  of  Ken 
tucky,  191. 

Bulger,   M.   J.,   candidate   for 
governor  of  Alabama,  1865, 
406. 
Bullock,  Ruf  us  B.,  governor  of 

Georgia,  510. 

Bull  Run,  battle  of,  154-156. 
Congressmen  at  the,  157. 
Flight  from,  158. 
Second  battle  of,  188. 
Burch,  John  C.,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  99. 
Burlingame,    Anson,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  90. 
Sketch  of,  90. 
Burnett,    Henry    C.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Confederate  senator,  72. 
Member    Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  95. 

Confederate  senator,  95. 
Burnside,  A.  E.,  his  belief  that 
Vallandigham  would  not  be 
convicted,  83. 

His  services  at  Roanoke  Isl 
and  and  Newbern,  1862, 160- 
168. 

At  Fredericksburg,  192. 
In  command  of  the  depart 
ment  of  the  Ohio,  196. 
Butler,  Benjamin  F.,  occupies 
Relay  House  and  Federal 
Hill,  Baltimore,  153. 
Commanding  troops  in  expe 
dition  against  Hatteras,  1861, 
164-166. 

Occupies  New  Orleans,  193. 
His  operations  against   Fort 
Fisher,  212. 


Butler,  Benjamin  F.,  opinion 
of  martial  rule  in  District 
of  Columbia  in  1865, 232. 
One  of  the  counsel  against 
Milligan  in  the  supreme 
court,  230. 

Rule  at  New  Orleans,  425. 
One  of  the  managers  in  the 
impeachment  of  President 
Johnson,  585. 

Opens  case  for  managers  in 
impeachment  of  President 
Johnson,  589. 
Amnesty  legislation  proposed 

by,  595,  598. 

Butler,  M.  C.,  exonerated  re 
specting  Hamburg  massa 
cre,  467. 

Candidate  for  lieutenant- 
governor  of  South  Caro 
lina,  505. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  favors  an 
nexation  of  Texas  as  neces 
sary  to  slavery,  46. 
Views  upon  state  sovereignty, 

322. 
Opinion  of  legitimate  result 

of  emancipation,  364. 
Biographical  sketch  of,  52-54. 
His  theory  of  states  rights,  101. 
California,  admission  of,  48. 
Calvert,  Charles  B.,  proposition 
of,  August  5, 1861,  for  peace 
amendments  to  the  Consti- 
tion,  315. 

Democratic  vote  cast  for  his 
proposition  of  Aug.  5, 1861, 
315. 

Campaign,  political,  1864, 617,618; 
1868,  619-624;  1872,  627-628; 
1876,  628-629;  1880,  674;  1884, 
683. 

Campbell,  John  A.,  his  part  in 
peace  negotiations,  1861, 
147, 148. 

Confederate  commissioner  at 
the  Hampton  Roads  con 
ference,  333. 

Counsel  for  Mr.  Tilden  in  the 
Louisiana  case   before  the 
electoral  commission.  655. 
Cameron  Simon,  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  64,  72. 
Attitude  toward  the  Critten 
den  compromise,  79. 
Sketch  of,  87. 

Canby,    Edward   R.   S.,    com 
mander  of  the  first  recon 
struction  district,  296,  492. 
Commander  second   military 
district,  Sept,  5, 1867, 296,  496. 
Capitol,  the,  description  of,  25. 
Old  halls  of  legislation,  26. 
Statuary  ha  11, 26. 
Carpenter,  Matt.  H.,  counsel  in 

ez-parte  Garland.  256. 
Counsel  for  Mr.  Tilden  in  the 
Louisiana  case  before  the 
electoral  commission,  655. 
Extract  from  his  speech  be 
fore  the  commission,  655. 
Carpenter,  R.  B.,  candidate  for 
governor  of    South   Caro 
lina,  505. 
Carter,  Ge9rge  W.,  leader  of 

faction  in  Louisiana,  554. 
Career  and  enterprises  of,  555, 

560,561. 

Cardoza,  Francis  L.,  secretary 
of  state,  South  Carolina,  503. 
Cardoza,  J.  W.,  sup't  of  educa 
tion,  Mississippi,  532. 
Carpet-baggers,  application  of 

the  term,  453. 
Rule  in  the  South,  6S4,  626. 
Carthage,  Mo.,  engagement  at, 
1861, 163. 


704 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Casey,  James  B.,  collector  of 
customs.  New  Orleans,  554. 
Enterprises  of,  560,  561. 
Cass,  Lewis,  Democratic  candi 
date    for    the    presidency, 
1848,48. 

Cedar  Mountain,  battle  of,  187. 
Census,    the     system    in    the 

United  States,  685-689. 
Object  of  constitutional  pro 
vision,  685. 

Sketch  of  legislation,  685,  686. 
Author's  bill  for  census  of 


Importance  and  excellence  of 
results  of  census  of  1880,  687. 

Character  of  census  of  1870, 
687. 

Statistics  of  population,  687, 
688. 

Scientific  and  political  pur 


Need  of  extending  field  of, 

689. 
Showing  of  increase  in  popu 

lation,  690. 
Industrial  statistics  to  1880, 

690,  691. 

Chamberlain,  Daniel  H.,  attor 
ney-general,    South   Caro 
lina,  503. 
Governor  of  South  Carolina, 

506. 

Sketch  of,  506. 

Chancellorsville,  battle  of,  197. 

Chandler,  Zachariah,   attitude 

respecting  conciliation,  1861, 

79. 

Senator    Thirty-sixth     Con 

gress,  72,  89. 

Secretary  of  the  interior,  89. 
Demands      the      thirteenth 

amendment,  311. 
Charleston,  evacuation  of,  212. 
Chase,   Salmon  P.,  resists  en 
forcement  of  fugitive  slave 
act  in  Ohio,  61,  62. 
Attitude  respecting  doctrine 

of  states  rights,  62. 
Views  as  to  expediency   of 
coercion  of  seceded  states, 
63,64. 
Attitude  toward  the  Critten- 

den  proposition,  78. 
Opinion  in   Veasie  Bank  vs. 

the  collector,  144. 

Dissents  from  the  opinion  of 

the  supreme  court  in  the 

Cummings  case,  252. 

Demands       the      thirteenth 

amendment,  311. 

Presides  at  the  trial  of  the  im 

peachment     of     President 

Johnson,  586,  588. 

Chase,   Samuel,    impeachment 

of,  584. 

Chattanooga,  battle  of,  202, 

Chickamauga,  battle  of,  201. 

Choate,  Ruf  us,  member  Massa 

chusetts  constitutional  con 

vention  of  1850,  586. 

Churchill,  John  C.,  member  of 

committee  of  investigation 

preliminary    to     impeach 

ment  of  President  Johnson, 

oSl. 

Church  and  the  military,  con 
flict  between,  in  Alabama, 
408. 

Civil  officers,  attempt  by  mili 
tary  commander  to  remove, 
in  North  Carolina,  495. 
Removal    of,    in    Louisiana, 

18*57,  544-549. 

Civil  Rights  bill,  its  relation  to 
states  rights,  628. 


Civil  Service  Reform,  bill  for, 
a  Democratic  measure,  676. 
Influence    of    the    measure 
upon  selection  of    Demo 
cratic     presidential   candi 
date,  1884,  776. 
ivil    War,     the,     proximate 

causes  of,  28. 
Efforts  to  avert,  32. 
Slavery  agitation  the  cause 

of,  56. 
Could  it  have  been  avoided? 

78-80. 

Civism,  wisdom  of,  34. 
Clark,  Daniel,  senator,  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  72. 
Amendment  to  the  Crittenden 
compromise  measure,  78-80. 
Clark,  Horace  F.,  member  of 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  91. 
Governor  of  North  Carolina, 

295. 

Clark,  John  B.,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,96. 
Confederate  general,  96. 
Clark,  J.  S.,  his  testimony  in  re 
gard  to  Ku-Klux  in  Ala- 


Clarke,  Charles,    governor  of 

Mississippi,  1864, 295. 
Clarksville,  capture  of,  176. 
Clay,  Clement  C.,  senator  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  70. 
Sketch  of,  70,  88. 
Part  taken  by,  in  the  Niagara 

peace  negotiations,  317. 
Clay,  Henry,  resists  attempt  to 
prohibit  extension  of  sla 
very,  45. 
Presidential  candidate,  1844, 

47. 

Clayton,  Powell,  inaugurated 
governor  of  Arkansas,  1868, 
535. 

His   administration  de 
nounced,  536. 
Elections  of,  as  senator,  536, 

537. 

His  quarrel  with  Lieutenant- 
Go  vernor  Johnson,  536,  537. 
Clemens,  Jeremiah,  statement 
of  purpose  of  Confederate 
government    in    attacking 
Fort  Sumter,  150. 
His  loyalty,  150. 
Clemens,  Sherrard,  member  of 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  73. 
Union  zeal  of,  73. 
Cleveland,   Grover,   his   party 

not  sectional,  679. 
Nominated  for  President  by 

the  Democratic  party,  682. 
Platform  upon  which  nomi 
nated,  682. 
Contrasted    with    James    G. 

Elaine,  683. 
Sketch  of  life,  683. 
Compared  with  Silas  Wright, 

683. 

A  Cato,  683. 

Inaugurated  President,  684. 
Cliff,  Tony,  murdered  in  Ala 
bama,  1870,  469. 
Clifford,   Nathan,    member  of 

electoral  commission,  650. 
Presides  in  the  electoral  com 
mission,  652. 

Clinton,  George,  statue  of,  26. 
Clinginan,  Thomas  L.,  senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  71. 
Confederate  general,  87. 
Clopton,  David,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  97. 
Member    Confederate    Con 
gress,  97. 
Cobb,  Ho  well,  303. 


Cobb,  Williamson  R.  W.,  mem 
ber   Thirty-sixth   Congress 
from  Alabama,  74. 
Distrustful  of  secession  as  a 

remedy,  74. 
Sketch  of,  97. 

Cochrane,  John,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  76. 
Sketch  of,  91. 
Coercion  of  a  state,  power  for, 

146  * 

Coffroth,  Alexander,  he  votes 
for  thirteenth  amendment, 
326. 

Coin,  public  faith  pledged  in 
act   of   March   18,   1869,   to 
payment  of  bonds  in,  136. 
Provisions  of  act  of  April  2, 

1792,  respecting,  670. 
Standard  under  that  act,  670. 
Standard  by  act  of  January 

18,  1837,670. 

Weight  of  fractional  silver, 
reduced,  act  of  Feb.  21, 1853, 
670. 

Question  of  meaning  of  term, 
under  act  of  Jan.  1, 1879, 671. 
Coinage  act  of  1873,  671. 
Coif  ax,  Schuyler,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
Afterwards  speaker,  75. 
Colonies,  slavery  in  the,  37-39. 
Collamer,  Jacob,  statue  of,  26. 
Senator     Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  64,  72,  86. 

Vote  in  committee  of  thir 
teen  on    Jefferson    Davis' 
proposition,  115. 
Colquitt,  Walter  T.,  303. 
Columbia,  S.  C.,  occupation  of, 

212. 
Compromise,  author's  plea  for, 

in  1861,  31. 
Missouri,  45. 

Crittenden,  proposition,  66, 67. 
Commission   of   seven  citizens 
proposed  July  29,  1861,  for 
peace  negotiations,  315. 
Commissioners'     treaty    from 
South  Carolina,  December, 
1860,  146. 
Confederate,  treaty,  1861, 146, 

Confederate,  to  England  and 
France,  October,  1861,  275. 

Confederate  peace,  January, 
1865,  327,  328. 

Confederate,  attendance  at 
the  Hampton  Roads  confer 
ence,  333. 

Report  of,  334. 
Commission,  electoral,  see 

electoral  commission. 
Committee    with    respect    to 
peace  amendments  to  the 
Constitution,  proposed    by 
the  author,  July  29, 1861, 314. 

Of  House  of  Representatives 
1872,  to  investigate  diffi 
culties  between  United 
States  and  state  officials  in 
Louisiana,  557. 

Of  House  of  Representatives, 
to  investigate  election  of 
1874  in  Louisiana,  569. 
Committees  on  the  electoral 
count  of  1876,  constitution 
of,  637. 

Plans  and  proceedings  of,  638- 
648. 

Report  of,  648. 

Conciliation,  efforts  toward, 
29-32,  64,  66. 

Ancient  Roman  policy  of,  31. 
Confederacy,  surrender  of  the 
armies  of,  214. 


INDEX. 


705 


Confederacy,  cause  of  final  de 
feat  of,  215. 
Occasion  for  its  organization, 

Recognition  by  foreign  pow 
ers,  242,  258. 

Severe  measures  of,  247. 
Justification  for,  248. 
The  recognition  of,  by  foreign 
powers  the  purpose  of  Ma 
son  and  Slidell,  275. 
Geographical  limits  of,  1864, 

309. 
Conference,  the   Hampton 

Roads,  333. 

Confiscation  acts  of  the  Thirty- 
seventh  Congress,  in  effect 
bills  of  attainder,  249. 
Confiscation  in  Louisiana,  434. 
Confiscations  enacted  by   the 
Confederate   Congress,  246. 
Congress,      the     Thirty-sixth, 

December  session,  1860,  61. 
Its  men  and  work,  62-80. 
After  life   of    some    of    its 
prominent  members,  86-99. 
Congress,  special    session    of, 

1861, 122. 
Congressional  action,  true  rule 

for,  373. 
Congress,  U.  S.  S.,  fight  with 

the  Virginia,  169. 
Conkling,      Roscoe.     member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
Rare  gifts,  75. 
His  extensive  fame,  91. 
Member  of  committee  on  the 

electoral  count,  637. 
Favors  M  lot "  plan,  641. 
Course  in  committee,  643. 
Advocates  electoral  commis 
sion  bill  in  the  Senate,  649. 
Refrains  from  voting  in  the 
Senate    upon    decision    of 
electoral  commission  in  the 
Florida  case,  656. 
Connecticut,   states  rights  in, 

106. 

Conover,    Simon     B.,    senator 
from  Florida,  sketch  of,  523. 
Conscription,    correspondence 
between  Seddon  and  Brown 
respecting,  in  Georgia,  305. 
Constitution    of     the    United 
States,   fidelity    of    Demo 
cratic  party  to,  35. 
Construction  of  preamble  of, 

35-36. 

Conflict  with  the  law  of  na 
tions  considered,  244. 
Author's  proposition  July  29, 
1861,  for  amendment  of,  in 
order  to  restore  peace  and 
union,  314,  315. 

Amendment  of,  proposed  by 
Mr.  Calvert,  of   Maryland, 
and  Senator  Saulsbury,  315. 
Views  of  the  author  expressed 
in  Congress  respecting  the 
power  to  amend,  321,  322. 
Remarks   of   President   Lin 
coln  respecting  essentials  to 
validity  of  amendment  to, 
344. 
Position  of  parties  respecting 

construction  of,  356,  357. 
Respect  paid  to,  by  the  gov 
ernment    throughout    the 
war,  364. 
Amendments  to,  proposed  by 

Thaddeus  Stevens,  366. 
Constitution,     state,     adopted 
under    the    reconstruction 
acts  in  Virginia,  489. 
Submitted  to  vote,  492. 
North  Carolina,  496. 


Constitution,  state,  ratified,  497. 
South  Carolina,  503. 
Georgia,  510. 
Alabama,  513. 
Submitted,  514. 
Florida,  517. 
Mississippi,  527. 
Vote  on,  ;>28. 

New  election  ordered,  529. 
Ratified,  529. 
Arkansas,  534. 
Fraud  in  election    charged, 

534,  535. 
Louisiana,  548. 
Ratified,  549. 
Texas,  575. 
Ratified,  576. 
Revised,  of  Missouri,  1865,  250, 

251. 
Amended,  of  Tennessee,  1864, 

382. 

Texas,  1866,  400. 
Ratified,  401. 

New,  of  Arkansas,  1870,  540. 
Amended,  of  Louisiana,  1870, 

554. 

Texas,  1876,  575. 

Constitution  of  Southern  Con 
federacy,  117, 118. 
Continental  Congress,  powers 

of,  127. 

Continental  bills  of  credit,  128. 
Contraband  of  war,  what  are, 

265. 

Convention,  proposed  by  Gar- 

rett  Davis,  June  9, 1864,  to 

reconstruct  the  Union,  316. 

Convention,    Secession,   South 

Carolina,  110. 
Georgia,  111. 
Mississippi,  114. 
Florida,  115. 
Louisiana,  115. 
Alabama,  115. 
Texas,  116. 
Arkansas,  119. 
Virginia,  119. 
North  Carolina,  120. 
Tennessee,  121. 

Convention,   Tennessee,  under 
provisional       government, 
January  9, 1865,  382. 
North  Carolina,Oct.2, 1865,384. 
Mississippi,  1865,  392. 
Georgia,  397. 
Texas,  1866,  401. 
Alabama,  1865,  404-406. 
South  Carolina,  1865,  412. 
Florida,  1868,  419. 
Louisiana,  1864,  428. 
Arkansas,  1864,  436. 
Held  under  the   reconstruc 
tion  acts,  in  Virginia,  489. 
North  Carolina,  496. 
South  Carolina,  502. 
Georgia,  509. 
Alabama,  513. 
Florida,  517. 
Mississippi,  526,  529. 
Arkansas,  534. 
Louisiana,  549. 
Texas,  575,  576. 

Conway,  Thomas  W.,  attempts 
to  establish  mixed  schools 
in  Louisiana,  432. 
Cooper  and  Gary,  popular  vote 
for,   as   candidates  of    the 
Greenback  party,  1876, 675. 
Corcoran,  Michael,  Col.,  held  as 
hostage  by  the  Confederate 
authorities,  243. 
Corinth,  capture  of,  May,  1862, 

178 

Attack  on,  October,  1862,  191. 
Corwin,  Thomas,  seeks  to  allay 
slavery  excitement,  28. 


Corwin,   Thomas,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
His  eloquence,  75. 
Member  committee  of  thirty- 
three,  77. 
Humor  of,  365. 

Coste,   M.   L.,   revenue  cutter 

Aiken  surrendered  by,  146. 

Cotton,  effects  of  cultivation  of, 

on  slavery,  39,  41. 
Its  relation  to  the  blockade, 

263. 
The  supply  of,  from  foreign 

sources,  264. 

Cotton-gin  of   Whitney,   rela 
tion  of,  to  cotton  produc 
tion,  38. 
Coushatta,  La.,  massacre  near, 

August,  1874,  565. 
Cowan    Edgar,     champion   of 
President  Johnson's  admin 
istration,  356. 

Craige,  Burton,member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  93. 
Sketch  of,  93. 

Craig,  James,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Consrress,  96. 
Sketch  of,  96. 

Crandall,  Prudence,effort  in  be 
half  of  the  colored  race,  41. 
Crane,  Joseph,  Lt.-Col.,  killed 

by  E.  M.  Yerger,  531. 
Crapo,  W.  W.,  debates  in  the 
House,  the  electoral   com 
mission,   Louisiana   action, 
657. 
Crawford,  Martin  J.,  member 

Thirty -sixth  Congress,  74. 
Favoring  secession,  74. 
Sketch  of,  96. 

Crawford,  William  H.,  113,  303. 
Crawford,   William    J.,    peace 
commissioner  from  the  Con 
federacy,  146. 
Credit,    Public,   causes  of  its 

soundness,  131. 
Crime  in  Texas,  1865-'68,  statis 
tics  of,  574. 

Crittenden,  George  B.,  Confed 
erate  general,  at  Webb's 
Cross  Roads,  174. 
Crittenden,  John  J.,  advocate 
of  measures  tending  to  allay 
irritation  caused  by  slavery, 
28. 

Senator,    Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  65. 

Persona]  sketch  of,  65-68,  88. 
Compromise  prepared  by,  66. 
Speech  in  the  Senate  respect 
ing  his  compromise  proposi 
tions,  66,  67. 
Eulogy  on  Douglas,  67. 
Farewell     address     to     the 

Senate,  67. 
Death  of,  68. 
Stood  against  extremists,  72, 

76. 

Responsibility  for  failure  of 
compromise    prepared  by, 
77-80. 
Member  of  the  committee  of 

thirteen,  77. 

Vote   on   the   Clark  amend 
ment,  79. 

Vote  in   committee  of  thir 
teen,    on  Jefferson   Davis' 
proposition,  115. 
Resolutions  of  July  22,  1861, 

a  union  measure,  122. 
Compromise  proposed  by  him, 
directed  toward  the  preser 
vation  of  the  Union  and  not 
of  slavery,  219. 
Accepted  by  the  Democracy 
of  the  North,  220. 


706 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Crittenden,   John  J.,   guest  at 
dinner  of  Secretary  Seward, 
after  Trent  affair,  291. 
Remarks  at,  292. 
Purpose  of  the  war  declared, 
in  resolutions   of   July  22, 
1861,  362. 
Democratic  party  loyal    to 

same,  363. 

Crompton    Samuel,    indebted 
ness  of  the  cotton  raiser  to, 
38. 
Cumberland,    the    ship    sunk 

by  the  Virginia,  169. 
-Cummings,  State  of  Missouri, 

249-255. 

Currency,  question  of,  in  poli 
tics,  629. 
Curry,  Jabez   L.  M.,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
Not  desirous  of  compromise, 

74. 

Sketch  of,  97. 

Curtis,  Benjamin    R.,  counsel 
for  President    Johnson    in 
impeachment  trial,  587. 
Curtis,   Samuel,    R.,    member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,   99. 
Sketch  of,  99. 
Services  in    Missouri   (1862), 

174. 

Cushing,   Caleb,   president    of 
Charleston  Convention,  60. 
Custom-house  faction,  quarrel 
of,   with  Warmoth  faction 
of    Republican     party    in 
Louisiana,  554-561. 
Cutter,  R.  King,  credentials  as 
senator  from  Louisiana  re 
ported  Feb.  18, 1865,  342. 
Daily  News,  friendly  attitude 

in  the  Trent  affair,  282. 
Daly,  Charles  P.,  argument  re 
specting  recognition  of  cap 
tured   Confederate    sailors 
as  prisoners  of  war,  243. 
Davidson,  Thomas  G.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  94. 
Sketch  of,  94. 

Davis,  Alexander,  Lieut  -Gov 
ernor  of  Mississippi,  532. 
Davis,  David,  delivers  the  opin 
ion  of  the  supreme  court 
in  the  case  of  Milligan,  231. 
Dissents  from  opinion  of  the 
supreme  court  in  the  Cum 
mings  case,  252. 
Discussed  in  committee   on 

electoral  count,  641-645. 
Selection    of,    for    electoral 

commission  expected,  649. 
Elected  senator  from  Illinois, 

650. 

Davis,   Edmund    J.,    presides 
over  constitutional  conven 
tion  of  Texas,  held  under 
reconstruction  acts,  574. 
Elected   governor  of  Texas, 

1869,  576. 

Davis,  Garrett,  proposes,  June 
9, 1864,  steps  toward  recon 
struction,  316. 

Personal  appearance  of,  356. 
Davis,  Henry  Winter,  his  elo 
quence  and  logic,  92. 
Speeches  against  military  in 
carcerations,  233,  234. 
Biographical  sketch,  237. 
President  Lincoln's  message 

Dec.  15, 1863,  on,  339. 
Protests  against  conduct  of 
President  Lincoln,  in  with 
holding  signature  from  re- 
construction  bill,  341. 
His  plan  for  reconstruction, 


Davis,  Henry  Winter,  test  oath 
a  feature  of  his  reconstruc 
tion  plan,  602. 
Davis,  Jefferson,  senator  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  68. 

Personal  sketch  of,  68. 

Attitude  toward  the  Critten 
den  proposition,  77. 

President  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  88. 

At  the  battle  of  Seven  Pines, 
92. 

Resigns  as  senator,  114. 

Proposition  in  the  committee 
of  thirteen,  114. 

Slavery  esteemed  by  him  the 
sole  ground  of  controversy, 
115. 

Chosen  provisional  President 
of  the  Southern  Confeder 
acy,  118. 

In  council  at  Montgomery, 
discussing  question  of  firing 
on  Fort  Sumter,  150. 

Leaves  Richmond,  1865, 213. 

Mention  of  at  dinner  given 
by  Mr.  Seward  after  Trent 
affair,  292. 

Requisition  for  troops,  Au 
gust  30, 1864,  305. 

Dissatisfaction  in  the  South 
with  administration  of,  De 
cember,  1864,  311,  312. 

Proposed  meeting  of  govern 
ors  of  Southern  States  to 
oppose  policy  of,  as  Presi 
dent,  312. 

Recent  discussion  respecting 
his  position  on  question  of 
secession  from  Confeder 
acy,  319. 

Letter  to  Governor  Z.  B. 
Vance,  January  8, 1864,  320. 

Capture,  confinement,  and  re 
lease  of,  579. 

Davis,  Jefferson  C.,  services  in 
Missouri,  1862, 164. 

At  Pea  Ridge,  174. 
Davis,  John  G.,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  76. 
Davis,  Reuben,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress  from  Missis 
sippi,  74. 

Distrustful  of  secession  as  a 
remedy  for  Southern  ills,  74. 

Sketch  of,  97. 

Dawes,  Henry  L.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  91. 

Senator,  91. 

Discusses  limitations  of  pow 
er  of  amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  Jan.,  1865,  323. 

Reports,  from  committee  on 
elections,  resolution  for  ap 
pointment  of  visiting  com 
mission  for  Southern  States, 
340. 

Dawaon,  John  L.,  offers  peace 
resolutions   in   summer  of 
1864,  317. 
Day,  S.  T.,  elected  lieut.-gov- 
ernor  of  Florida,  1870,  522. 

His   contest  with   Governor 

Reed,  523. 

Dayton,  William  L.,  as  minister 
to  France,  participates  in 
the  negotiations  respecting 
the  Declaration  of  Paris, 
270,  271. 

Debt,  the  public,  in  1790,  128 ; 

1846,  126 ;  1849, 126 ;  1851, 126 ; 

1857, 126 ;  1865,  130  ;  1884,  130. 

Declaration   of  Paris,    articles 

of,  266. 

Objection  of  United  States  to, 
267. 


Declaration  of  Paris,  negotia 
tions  respecting,  prior  to 
1861,  267. 

Preamble  and  resolutions  of 
fered  by  the  author,  1862, 
268. 

Proposition  to  Great  Britain 
and  France  to  admit  the 
United  States  as  a  party  to, 
1861,  269,270. 

Conditions  of  admission,  ten 
dered  by  Great  Britain  and 
France,  270. 

Rejection  of  the  conditions 
by  the  United  States,  and 
failure  of  the  negotiations. 
270,  271. 

De/acto,  666-668. 
Dejarmette,  Daniel  C.,  member 
of    the    Thirty-sixth   Con 
gress,  72. 

Disposed  toward  a  Southern 
Confederacy,  72. 

Member    Confederate    Con 
gress,  92. 
De  jure,  666-668. 
De  Kay,  Drake,  aid  to  General 

Mansfield,  157. 

Democratic  party,  strict  con- 
structionists  of  the  Consti 
tution,  35-36. 

Success,  240. 

Of  the  North  the  only 
Union  party,  248. 

Attitude  of,  toward  prescrip 
tive  measures,  257. 

Mr.  Seward's  sentiments  to 
ward,  1868,  274. 

Unsparing  efforts  of,  in  Con 
gress  throughout  the  war 
to  bring  about  an  honorable 
peace,  314. 

Convention  of,  at  Chicago, 
1864,  holds  out  the  olive 
branch,  317. 

Its  theory  of  constitutional 
construction,  356. 

Platform  of,  1864,  618. 

False  charges  against,  620. 

Deeds  of,  620. 

Its  desire  for  peace,  621. 

Its  loyalty  and  services  dur 
ing  the  war,  621-623. 

Attitude  of,  Dec.,  1876,  636. 

Its  candidates  for  President 
and  Vice-President,  1877,  de 
clared  by  resolution  of  the 
House  elected,  668. 

Convention  at  Cincinnati,  1880, 
674. 

Platform  and  nominations, 
1880,  674. 

The  civil  service  reform  bill 
a  measure  of,  676. 

Not  sectional,  679. 

Reasons  for  its  triumph  in 
1885,  679-682. 

Its  pledges,  682. 

Democrats,  votes  of,  for  the 
thirteenth  amendment  on 
final  passage  in  the  House, 
326. 

Northern,  favor  doctrine  of 
squatter  sovereignty,  55. 

Their  theory  of  status  of  se 
ceding  states,  123. 
Dent,  Lewis,  candidate  for  gov 
ernor  of  Mississippi,  1869, 529. 

His  letter  to  President  Grant, 

1869,  530. 
Devens,  Charles,  member  of  the 

Hayes  cabinet,  670. 
Deweese,  Robert  A .,  murder  of, 

566. 
Direct  tax  of  1799, 129. 

Of  1861, 140. 


INDEX. 


707 


Disloyal  practices,  order  of  sec 
retary  of  war,  Aug.  8,  1862, 
for  arrest  of  persons  guilty 
of,  223. 

District  of  Columbia,  suffrage 
bill  for,  376. 

Disunion,     temporary,     as 

means  of  peace,  29. 
Evils  of,  33. 

Dixon,  James,  efforts  in  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress  to  avoid  war, 
64. 

Attitude  toward  President 
Johnson's  administration, 
356. 

Doolittle,    James    R.,    senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Sketch  of,  89. 

Vote  in  committee  of  thirteen 
on  Jefferson  Davis'  propo 
sition,  115. 
Attitude  toward  President 
Johnson's  administration, 
356. 

Donelson,  Fort,  capture  of,  175. 

Dorman,  James,  Rev.,  whipped 
by  Ku-Klux,  471. 

Dougherty,  Edward,  removed 
from  judgeship  in  Texas, 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  advocate 
of  measures  for  allaying 
slavery  agitation,  28. 

Views  of  possible  modes  of 
avoiding  the  civil  war,  29. 

Introduces  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  49. 

His  doctrine  of  squatter  sov 
ereignty  favored  by  the 
Northern  Democrats,  55. 

Position  respecting  Lecomp- 
ton  bill,  56,  58. 

Speech  at  Columbus,  58. 

His  vote  on  the  conference 
bill,  58. 

Candidacy  at  the  Charleston 
convention,  f>9. 

Nominated  for  the  Presi 
dency,  1860,  60. 

His  doctrines  finally  defeated, 

Leader  in  the  Senate  of  the 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  63. 
Anxious  for  reconciliation,  64. 
Death  of,  1861,  67. 
Eulogies  upon,  67,  68. 
View   of    Southern  attitude 
toward  the  Crittenden  pro 
position,  77. 
Testimony     respecting     the 

committee  of  thirteen,  80. 
Following  of,  622-623. 
Dred  Scott  decision,  effect  upon 

parties,  58. 

Dupont,  Samuel  F.,  command 
ing  naval  forces  in  expedi 
tion  against  Port  Royal, 
1861, 165. 

Durant,    Thomas  J.,  commis 
sioner    of    registration   in 
Louisiana,  1863,426. 
Declines  appointment  of  gov 
ernor  of  Louisiana,  545. 
Durell,  E.  H.,  president  of  Lou 
isiana     convention,    April 
1864,  428. 

Durkee,  Charles,  senator,  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  89. 
His  hostility  to  the  fugitive 

slave  law,  89. 
Duties  on  imports,  statement 

of,  1860-1864, 138-140. 
Edgerton,  Frank  S.,  murder  of, 

566. 

Edmondson,  Harry  A.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 


Edmondson,  Harry  A.,  member 
of  Confederate  Congress, 
93* 

Edmunds,  Geo.  F.,  chairman  of 
senate    committee   on  the 
electoral  count,  1876,  638. 
Remarks  by  him  in  said  com 
mittee,  642,  644,  646,  647. 

Member  of  electoral  commis 
sion,  650. 

Education  of  colored  people  in 
Connecticut,  efforts  toward, 
40,41. 

Eggleston,  B.  B.,  presides  at 
constitutional  convention, 
Mississippi,  1868,  526. 
Eldridge,  Charles  A.,  member 
of  committee  of  investiga 
tion,  preliminary  to  im 
peachment  of  President 
Johnson,  581. 

Elections,  presidential,  1856,  50  : 
1860,  60,  61 ;  1864,  617,  618  ; 
1868,  619,  624 ;  1872,  627,  628  ; 
1876,  63T,  635  ;  1880,  675  ;  1884, 
683. 

Elective  franchise,  question  of 
conferring  right  of,  upon 
colored  persons  in  the  work 
of  reconstruction,  343,  344. 

Restricted  in  Tennessee,  1865, 
382. 

Military  interference  with  ex 
ercise  of,  629-634. 
Electoral  college,  states  in  re 
bellion  declared  not  en 
titled  to  be  represented  in, 
342. 

Electoral  commission,  occasion 
for,  637. 

Committees  of  Congress  for, 
637. 

Other  plans  than  proposed, 
638. 

The  McCrary  plan,  638. 

House  committee's  plan  of 
constituting  it  from  the  su 
preme  court,  638,  642. 

Question  of  finality  of  con 
clusions  of,  638,  639. 

Secrecy  of  deliberations  pre 
paratory  to,  639. 

Committee  conferences  re 
specting,  640-648. 

The  mixed-tribunal  plan,  640. 

The  "lot"  feature,  640. 

The  "lot"  feature  disclosed, 
641. 

The  "lot"  feature  abandoned, 
641. 

The  seniority  principle  of  se 
lection  of  members,  643. 

The  "cob-house"  principle, 
646. 

The  geographical  plan,  646. 

Agreement  of  committee, 
648. 

Passage  of  bill  for,  649. 

Constitution  of,  650. 

First  meeting  of,  625. 

Assumes  the  regularity  of  the 
returns  of  the  Hayes  elec 
tors  in  the  Florida  case,  653. 

Excludes  evidence,  aliunde, 
653. 

Decides  the  Florida  vote  in 
favor  of  Hayes,  eight  to 
seven,  653. 

Decides  congress  concluded 
by  the  governor's  certificate 
in  the  case  of  the  electoral 
vote  of  Florida,  653. 

Considers  the  Louisiana  re 
turns,  655. 

Declines  to  admit  evidence, 
aliunde,  655,  666. 


Electoral    commission,   Louis 
iana  vote  in  favor  of  Hayes, 
eight  to  seven,  656. 
Electoral  count,  1877,  652-666. 
Filibustering  to  prevent  com 
pletion  of,  664. 
Close  of,  665. 
Electoral  vote,     question     of 

right  to  count,  636,  637. 
Ellis,   John   W.,    as  governor, 
urges  North  Carolina  to  se 
cession,  119. 
Governor  of  North  Carolina, 

1861,  294. 

Ellsworth,  Ephraim  Elmer,  col 
onel  of  zouave  regiment  of 
Illinois,  154. 

Killed  at  Alexandria,  154. 
Ely,  Alfred,   member   Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  91. 
At  Bull  Run,  157. 
Captured,  158. 

Emancipation,  in  other  coun 
tries,  37. 

Emancipation  of  slaves  a  legiti 
mate  result  of  the  war, 
364. 

Equality  before  the  law  a  le 
gitimate  result  of,  364. 
Emancipation  proclamation  is 
sued,  123. 
Proposed  by  Charles  Sumner 

to  be  made  a  statute,  340. 
Emory,    W.     H.,    commander 
department  of  the  Gulf,  565. 
Course  of,  in  the  McEnery- 

Kellogg  contest,  565. 
English,  James   E.,   votes  for 
thirteenth  amendment,  326. 
English,  William  H.,  nominated 
by  the  Democratic  party  for 
Vice-President,  1880,  674. 
Vote  cast  for,  in  the  electoral 

college,  675. 
Ericsson,  John,  service  to  the 

Union  as  an  inventor,  172. 
Et  cetera  oath,  606. 
Etheridge,   Emerson,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
His  genius  for  politics.  74. 
Eustis,  George,  and  McFarland, 
E.  I.,  secretaries  of  Messrs. 
Mason  and  Slidell,  279. 
Eustis,  George,  taken  from  the 

Trent,  280. 

Letter  acknowledging  cour 
tesy  of  Captain  Wilkes,  281. 
Evarts,  William  M.,  counsel  be 
fore  the  electoral  commis 
sion,  1877,  653. 
Member  of  the  Hayes  cabinet, 

Everett,    Edward,    nominated 

Vice-President,  I860.  60. 
Proposed  member   of   peace 
commission,  1861,  315. 

Ewell,  Richard  S.,  in  the  Shen- 

andoah  valley,  183. 
At  Manassas,  188. 

Ewing,  Thomas,  proposed  mem 
ber  of  peace  commission 
1861,  315. 

Exchange  of  prisoners,  theo 
retical  obstacles  to,  243. 

Exposition  at  New  Orleans, 
lessons  of,  678,  679. 

Fairfax,  Lieut.  D.  M.,  boards 

the  Trent,  279. 

Captain  Wilkes'  instructions 
to,  279. 

Fair  Oaks,  battle  of,  184. 

Familiar  and  frequent  oath- 
taking,  remarks  on  the  sub 
ject,  604-612. 

Farm,  the,  foundation  of  our 
industries,  692. 


708 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Farm,  the,  public  land  devoted 

to  farms,  693. 
Homestead  system,  694. 
Farragut,  David  G.,   captures 

New  Orleans,  193. 
At  Port  Hudson,  196. 
At  Mobile,  210,  211. 
Federal  Hill  fort,  occupation  of 

by  General  Butler,  153. 
Federal  party,  cause  of  over 
throw,  105. 
Attitude  toward  state  rights, 

10(5. 

Federal  system  of  representa 
tion,  theory  of,  vindicated, 


Federal  system,  vitality  of,  124. 

Fellows,  J.  Q.  A.,  candidate  for 

governor  of  Louisiana,  1864, 

427. 

Fenton,  Reuben  E.,  senator  and 

governor,  91. 

Ferry,  Orris  S.,  senator  in 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  from 
Connecticut,  91. 

Ferry,  Thomas  W.,  presides  at 
the  count  of  the  electoral 
votes,  1877,  652. 

Announces  decision  in  matter 
of  Louisiana  electoral  vote, 
660. 

Announces  result  of  the  elec 
toral  count,  665. 
Fessenden,  William  P.,  senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72 
Secretary  of  the  treasury,  86. 
Field,  David   Dudley,  counsel 
for  Milligan  before  the  su 
preme  court,  230. 
Counsel  for  the   plaintiff  in 
error  in  Cummings  case,  251. 
On  the  use  of  the  army  at  the 

polls.  631. 

Field,  Stephen  J.,  delivers 
opinion  of  supreme  court 
in  the  Cummings  case,  253. 
Delivers  opinion  of  supreme 
court  in  ex-parte  Garland, 
256. 

Member  electoral  commis 
sion,  650. 

Considered  the  action  of  the 
electoral  commission  in  the 
Florida  case  unjust,  655. 
Proposition  in  the  electoral 

commission,  656. 
Fifth     Regiment,    New    York 
Excelsior  brigade,  scouting 
party  of,  near  Fredericks- 
burg,  199. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  candidate  of 
the  American  party  for  the 
presidency,  1856,  50. 
Suggests,  1849,  issue  of  bank 
notes    secured    by    United 
States  stocks,  143. 
Proposed  member  of  peace 

commission,  1861,  315. 
Finances,  national,  prior  to  the 

civil  war,  125-129. 
Management  of,  during  the 

civil  war,  129-144. 
Financial  crises  of  1837  and  1857 

131. 

Financial  state  of  Virginia,  493. 
North  Carolina,  499. 
South  Carolina,  506. 
Georgia,  511. 
Alabama,  516. 
Florida,  524. 
Mississippi,  532,  533. 
Arkansas,  542. 
Louisiana,  550,  553,  569,  570. 
Texas,  572,  577. 

Fishback,  William  M.,  elected 
senator  from  Arkansas,  437 


Fisher,  Fort,  operations  against 

and  capture  of,  212. 
Fitch,     Graham     N.,    senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Attitude  toward  secession,  89. 
Fitzpatrick,   Benjamin,    nomi 
nated  Vice-President,  60. 
Senator     Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  70. 
Sketch  of,  87. 

Presided  over  Alabama  con 
vention,  Sept.  1865,  404. 
Flag  of  the  Union,  similarity 
to  flag  of  Confederacy,  308. 
Symbolism     of    the    resem 
blance,  308. 

Flanders,  B.  F.,  candidate  for 
governor  of  Louisiana,  1864, 
427. 
Appointed  governor  of  Louis  - 

Flanagan,  J.  W.,  elected  sena 
tor  from  Texas,  1870,  577. 
Flannegan,    Harris,    governor 

of  Arkansas,  1864,  295. 
Florence,  Thomas  B.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  76. 
Florida,  question  of  acquisition 
of,  44. 

Convention  and  ordinance  of 
secession,  115. 

Delegates  elected  to  South 
ern  Congress,  115. 

Military  operations  in,  in  1862, 
174. 

Provisional  government  of, 
419. 

Convention,  1865,  419. 

Ordinance  of  secession  de 
clared  void,  420. 

Part  of  the  third  military  dis 
trict,  under  reconstruction 
acts,  517. 

Registration  in,  517. 

Constitutional  convention  in, 
517. 

The  constitution,  517. 

The  legislature,  517. 

Admission  to  representation, 
517. 

Installation  of  state  officers 
of,  518. 

Government,  1868-'74,  518-524. 

Legislation  in,  concerning 
freedmen,  523. 

Financial  condition  of,  1872, 
524. 

Presidential  returns  from,  at 
the  electoral  count,  1877, 637. 

Electoral  vote  of,  consid 
ered  by  the  electoral  com 
mission,  1877,  652. 

Decision  of  the  electoral  com 
mission,  upon  electoral  vote 
of,  653. 

Vote  of,  counted  for  Hayes, 
654. 

Comparison   of   case    before 
electoral   commission  with 
that  of  Louisiana,  660. 
Flournoy,  R.    W.,   experience 

with  Ku-Klux,  472. 
Floyd,  John  B.,  course  as  sec 
retary  of  war,  151. 

Abandons  Fort  Donelson,  175, 

176. 

Foote,  Andrew  H.,  services  on 
the  Tennessee  River,  175. 

Takes  Clarksville,  176. 
Foote,  Henry  S.,  offers  resolu 
tion  in    Confederate    Con 
gress,  September,  1862,  for 
peace,  318. 
Sketch  of,  319. 

Force  bill,  debate  upon,  April 
4,1871,  475-479. 


Force  bill,  author's  speech  up 
on,  476,  479. 

Force  bills  characterized,  452. 

Force  or  freedom,  author's 
speech  from  that  text,  633. 

Foreign  power,  Confederate 
union  with,  suggested,  De 
cember,  1864,  312. 

Foreign   relations   during  the 

civil  war,  258-274. 
Mr.  Seward's  management  of, 

Forney,  John  W.,  incident  at 

house  of,  1855,  410. 
Forrest,   N.  B.,  testimony   of, 
respecting    the    Ku-Klux, 
454,  455. 

Forsyth,    John,    of    Alabama, 
peace    commissioner   from 
the  Confederacy,  146. 
Fort  Lafayette,  "  The  Ameri 
can  Bastile,"  282. 
British  subjects  detained  in, 

282. 
Fort  Warren,  Captain  Wilkes' 

prisoners  detained  in,  281. 
Foster,    Charles,   member    of 
committee  for  investigating 
Louisiana  election  of  1874, 
569. 
Foster,   John    G.,   services   at 

Newbera,  1862, 167. 
At  the  battle  of  Games'  Mills, 

186. 

Foster,  La  Fayette  S.,  efforts  in 
Thirty-sixth    Congress    to 
avert  war,  64. 
President  pro  tempore  of  the 

Senate,  86. 

Fouke,  Philip   B.,  member   of 
the   Thirty-sixth  Congress, 
95. 
Obligation   to    congressional 

associations,  95. 

Fourteenth  amendment  dis 
cussed  and  condemned,  257. 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  breach  be 
tween  him  and  John  Adams, 
129. 
Franklin,  William  B.,  at  West 

Point,  Va.,  182. 
Franklin,    William    S.,     com 
mander  sub-district  of  Win 
chester,  486. 
Frederick,  Caesar,  murdered  in 

Alabama,  1870,  469. 
Fredericksburg,  battle  of,  192. 
Freedmen,  President  Lincoln's 
remarks  respecting,  in  mes 
sage  of  Dec.  8, 1863,  338. 
Status  of,  1867,  375. 
Rights  refused  to,  in  Tennes 
see,  1866,  382. 
Legislation  in  North  Carolina 

respecting,  1866,  388. 
Legislation    respecting    the, 

in  Mississippi,  1865,  393. 
Legislation  respecting  the,  in 

Georgia,  1865,  398. 
General  Granger's  order  re 
specting,  400. 

Legislation  respecting  the,  in 
Texas,  401. 
In  Alabama,  406. 
In  South  Carolina,  415. 
In  Florida,  420. 
In  Virginia,  424. 
In  Arkansas,  436,  438. 
Order  9f  General  Sickles  re 
specting,  416. 

Attitude  of,  in  South  Caro 
lina,  1867,  501. 
Legislation  in  South  Carolina 

respecting,  504. 
Convention  of,  at  Charleston, 
1867,  501. 


INDEX. 


709 


Freedmen,    convention   of,  at 

Mobile,  Ala.,  1867,  512. 
Legislation  in   Florida    con 
cerning1,  533. 
Threatened   outbreak  of,  in 

Mississippi,  1867,  526. 
Legislation  respecting  the,  in 

Louisiana,  1869,  553. 
Persecuted  in  Texas,  572,  574. 
Orders  respecting1,  in  Texas, 

573. 

Freedmen's  Bureau,  attitude  of 
administration   of,    toward 
state  courts,  1866,  388. 
Acts    of     establishment    of, 

441,  442. 
President  Johnson's  vetoes  of 

acts  establishing1,  444. 
Investigation  of,  447. 
Freedom  of  the  seas,  the  policy 

of  the  United  States,  264. 
Long  asserted  by  America, 

283. 

American  doctrine  of,  admit 
ted  by  Great  Britain  as  a 
result  of  the  Trent  affair, 
293. 

Free  ships  and  free  trade,  289. 
Free  soil  party,  48. 
Frelinghuysen,  F.  T.,  member 
of  committee  on  the  elec 
toral  count,  637. 
Remarks  in  said  committee, 

642,643. 

Member    electoral     commis 
sion,  650. 
Fremont,   John   C.,  service  in 

Virginia,  184. 

French,  Ezra  B.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  90. 
Second  auditor  of  the  treas 
ury,  90. 

French,  George  Z.,  member  of 
convention  and  legislature 
of  Alabama,  during  recon 
struction  period,  498. 
Frye,  William  P.,  member  of 
committee   of   Congress  to 
visit  New  Orleans  to  com 
pose  political  situation,  569. 
Frost,    Daniel   M.,    surrenders 
Fort  Jackson,  Mo.,  to  Capt. 
Lyon,  163. 
Fugitive  slave  act,    irritation 

produced  by,  48. 
Its  requirement  of  surrender 
of  fugitives  without  trial  by 
jury,51. 

Question  of  its  constitution 
ality,  62. 

Opposition  in  Ohio,  62. 
State  legislation  to  nullify, 

106-109. 
Fusion  party  in  Louisiana,  1872, 

562. 

Games'  Mills,  battle  of,  186. 
Ganson,  John,  offers  resolution 
to  investigate  the  matter  of 
military  incarceration,  Jan., 
1865, 233. 

Votes  for  thirteenth  amend 
ment,  326. 
Gardner,     Frank,     surrenders 

Port  Hudson,  196. 
Garfleld,  James  A.,  one  of  the 
counsel  for  Milligan  before 
the  supreme  court,  230. 
Argument  in  defense  of  Mil 
ligan,  233. 

Remonstrates    against    mili 
tary  incarcerations,  234. 
Offers,    June    13,    1864,    the 
Brown  substitute  for  House 
reconstruction  bill,  340. 
Opposes  electoral  commission 
bill  in  the  House,  649. 


Garfleld,   James  A.,    member 
electoral  commission,  650. 

Nominated  by  the  Republi 
can  party  for  President,  673. 

Elected,  675. 

Sketch  of,  675. 

His  inaugural,  675. 

Assassination,  675,  676. 

His  fortitude,  676. 
Garland,  Augustus  H.,  31. 

Facts  in  the  case  of  his  appli 
cation  for  restoration  to 
practice  in  supreme  court, 
255. 

Decision  in  said  case,  256. 

Biographical  sketch   of,  440, 

Elected  governor  of  Arkan 
sas,  1874,  540. 

Stand  for  the  repeal  of  the 

prescriptive  oaths,  616. 
Garnett,   M.    R.     H.,   member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 

Disposed  toward  a  Southern 
Confederacy,  78. 

His  Confederate  service,  92. 

Wounded  at  Seven  Pines,  93. 

Favoring  secession,  74. 

Oratory   at  the  time  of  the 
withdrawal  of  the  states,  64. 
Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  estab 
lished  The  Liberator,  1831, 50. 
Gartrell,   Lucius    J.,    member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 

Favoring  secession,  74. 

Sketch  of,  96. 
Geutry,  Meredith  P.,  297. 
Georgia,  secession  convention, 
111. 

Debates  in  the  legislature 
and  convention  respecting 
secession,  111,  112. 

Ordinance  of  secession,  111. 

Seizure  of  United  States 
property,  111. 

Payment  of  debts  to  northern 
creditors  forbidden,  111. 

Election  of  delegates  to 
Southern  Congress,  111. 

Military  operations  in,  in 
1862, 173. 

Campaign,  1864,  206-209. 

Declines  to  respond  to  Con 
federate  call  for  troops, 
1864,  305. 

Peace  resolutions  proposed  in 
legislature  of,  1864,  319. 

Desolation  following  Sher 
man's  march  through,  395, 
467. 

Steps  toward  reorganization 
in,  397. 

Provisional  government  of, 
397. 

Convention,  1865,  397. 

Ordinance  of  secession  an 
nulled,  397. 

Part  of  third  military  district 
under  reconstruction  acts, 
508. 

Civil  officers  in,continued,  508. 

Registration  in,  509. 

Constitutional  convention  un 
der  reconstruction  acts,  509. 

Constitution  ratified,  510. 

Conditions  of  readmission  of, 
as  prescribed  by  Congress, 
510. 

Legislature  of,  1868,  510,  511. 

Debt  of,  increased  under 
Republican  rule,  511. 

Financial  condition,  1872,  511. 
Gettysburg,  battle  of,  201. 
Gibson,  George,  Jr.,  comman 
der  sub-district  of  Fortress 
Monroe,  486. 


Gibson,  Randall,  action  in 
House  on  decision  of  elec 
toral  commission  in  Florida 
case,  657. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.,  contended 
that  the  Democratic  party 
in  1857  was  committed  to 
inter-state  slave  trade,  39. 

Aggressive  anti-slavery  ora 
tor,  75. 

Gilmer,John  A.,member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress  from  North 
Carolina,  74. 

Distrustful  of  secession  as  a 
remedy,  74. 

His  wit,  74. 

Attitude  respecting  Critten- 
den  compromise,  78. 

Sketch  of,  93. 

Gilmore,  Quincy  A.,  services  in 
operations  against  Fort 
Pulaski,  173. 

Issues  order  annulling  Gov. 
Brown's  proclamation  of 
May  3, 1865,  397. 

Proclamations  by  ,1865, 411, 412. 
Gist,  Wm.  H.,  governor  South 
Carolina,  108. 

Recommends  call  of  conven 
tion  to  consider  the  mode 
and  measure  of  redress,  1860 
108. 

Gleason,  W.  H.,   contest  with 
Governor  Reed  of  Florida, 
518. 
Gold,  coinage  of,  670. 

Standard  of  same,  670,  671. 

Dollar  standard  unit  of  value, 

671. 
Goldsborough,  Louis  M.,  naval 

services,  1863, 166. 
Goodell,  William,  extract  from 
his  work,  Slavery  and  Anti- 
Slavery,  39,  40. 
Gordon,  John  B.,  31. 

Takes  Fort  Stedman,  313. 

Attacks  Fort  Hascall,  313. 

Testimony  respecting  state  of 
feeling  in  the  South,  467, 
468. 

Candidate    for  governor  of 

Georgia,  510. 
Governors  of  Southern  States, 

1861,  294 ;  1864,  295. 
Grand  Parish,  La.,  outbreak  in, 

April,  1873,  565. 
Granger,  Gordon,  at  Mobile,  211. 

His  order  respecting  freed- 

men  in  Texas,  400. 
Granger,    R.    S.,    commander 
sub-district    of    Richmond, 
486. 
Grant,  General  U.  S.,  31. 

Attacks  Confederates  at  Bel- 
mont,  Mo.,  163. 

Captures  Fort  Donelson,  175, 
176. 

At  Shiloh,  177. 

His  Mississippi  campaign,  1863, 
194. 

Captures  Vicksburg,  195. 

At  Chattanooga,  303. 

General-in-chief ,  March,  1864, 
203. 

Letter  of,  April  19, 1861,  220. 

Maxim  on  which  he  acted, 
237. 

Remark  on  complete  desola 
tion  of  the  Shenandoah  val 
ley,  309,  310. 

Letter  to  Judge  Dent,  1839, 
respecting  parties  in  Missis 
sippi,  539. 

Dispatch  to  General  Sheridan 
respecting  construction  of 
reconstruction  acts,  546. 


7io 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Grant,  General  U.  S.,  course  of, 
respecting     difficulties     in 
Louisiana,  1872-3, 562-568. 
Receives  General  Lee's  sur 
render,  578. 
Appointed  secretary  of  war 

ad  interim,  582. 

Clemency   of,  in  the  agree 
ment  with  Lee,  597. 
Elected  President,  1868,  634. 
Elected  President,  1872,  628. 
Tribute  to,  672,  673. 
Great    Britain   recognizes  the 

Confederacy,  258. 
Greeley,  Horace,  favored  non- 
coercion,  64. 

Peace    correspondence    and 
conference  with  Sanders,  at 
Niagara,  1864,  317. 
Bondsman  for  Jefferson  Da 
vis,  579. 

Causes  of  his  selection  for  the 
candidacy    for    the    presi 
dency,  597,  598. 
Candidate  for  the  presidency, 

627,  628. 

Green,  Ashbel,  counsel  for  Mr. 
Tilden  in  the  Louisiana  case 
before  the  electoral  com 
mission,  655. 

Green,  James  S.,  senator  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  71. 
Opposed  Douglas  on  the  Le- 

compton  question,  71. 
Asserted  the  vigor  of  the  Con 
stitution  in  its  relation  to 
slavery,  89. 

His  ability  in  debate,  89. 
Greenback  party,  platform  of 
1880,  nomination  of  General 
Weaver,  675. 

Greene,  Major-General  Nathan 
iel,  statue  of,  26. 
Griffin,  Charles,  in  command  of 
the  fifth  military   district, 
547. 

In  command  of  the  sub-dis 
trict  of  Texas,  572. 
Grimes,    James     W.,    senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  89. 
Sketch  of,  89. 

Vote  in  committee  on  Jeffer 
son  Davis'  proposition,  115. 
Interview  of,  with  President 
Johnson   during    impeach 
ment  trial,  593. 

Reasons  for  vote  of,  upon  im 
peachment  trial,  593,  594. 
Griswold,  John    A.,  votes  for 
thirteenth  amendment,  326. 
Groesbeck,  Wm.  S.,  counsel  for 
President  Johnson,  in   im 
peachment  trial,  587. 
Grow,    Galusha    A.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
Sketch  of,  75. 

Altercation  with  Keitt,  75,  77. 
Grundy,  Felix,  297,  298,  440. 
Guizot,  Francois  P.  G.,  favors 

Swiss  secessionists,  261. 
Gurley,  John  A.,  at  Bull  Run, 

157, 158. 
Seeks  removal  of  McClellan, 

1861, 159. 

Gustinel,  Arthur,  removed 
from  office  by  General  Han 
cock,  549. 

Guthrie,  James,  remarks  of,  28. 
Proposed  member  of  peace 

commission,  1861,  315. 
Personal  appearance,  356. 
Gwin,    William      M.,    senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Sketch  of,  90. 

Habeas  corpus,  suspension  of 
in  1862,  224. 


Habeas  corpus,  suspended  by 
the  Confederate  govern 
ment,  247. 

Disregard  of,  in  North  Caro 
lina,  458,  459. 

Hahn,  Michael,  governor  of 
Louisiana,  295. 

Inauguration,  427. 

Sketch  of,  427,  428. 

Elected  senator,  429. 

Resigned  governorship,  429. 
Hale,  John  P.,  anti-slavery  can 
didate  for  the  presidency, 
1848,  48. 

Senator  Thirty-sixth  Con 
gress,  72. 

His  wit  and  humor,  86. 
Hale,  William,  murdered  in  Al 
abama,  1870,  466. 
Halleck,  General  Henry  W.,  in 
command  of  the   Western 
department,  1861, 163. 

At  Corinth,  178. 

Hallett,  Benjamin  F.,  member 
of  the  Massachusetts  consti 
tutional  convention  of  1850, 
586. 

Hamburgh  massacre,  467. 
Hamilton,  Alexander,  views  on 
government,  680. 

His  system  the  foundation  of 
the  Republican  platform  of 
1884,  680. 

His  scheme  of  internal  reve 
nue  to  discharge  Revolu 
tionary  War  debt,  129. 
Hamilton,  A.  J.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress  from 
Texas,  74. 

Distrustful  of  secession  as  a 
cure  for  Southern  ills,  74. 

Member  of  committee  of 
thirty-three,  77. 

Sketch  of,  98. 

Provisional  governor  of  Tex 
as,  295. 

Condition  of  affairs  at  the 
time  of  his  appointment  as 
governor,  399. 

Declaration  respecting  the 
f  reedmen,  399. 

Leader  of  conservatives  in 
Texas  constitutional  con 
vention,  574. 

Candidate  for  governor,  1869, 

576. 

Hamilton,  Morgan  C.,  leader  of 
radicals  in  Texas  constitu 
tional  convention,  574. 

Elected  senator  from  Texas, 

1870,  577. 

Hamlin,  Hannibal,  Republi 
can  candidate  for  the  vice- 
presidency,  1860,  60. 

Vice-President,  86. 
Hammond,  James  H.,  senator 
Thirty-sixth  congress,  87. 

Author    of    the    Pro-slavery 

Argument,  87. 
Hampton  Roads  coiif erence,333. 

Good  faith  at,  336. 
Hampton  Roads,  naval  battle  in 

168. 
Hampton,  Wade,  31. 

Candidate  for  governor  of 
South  Carolina,  1865,  413. 

Advice  by  him  to  the  freed- 

men,  1867,  501. 

Hancock,  W.  S.,  at  Williams- 
burg,  181. 

Seward's  tribute  to,  274. 

Assigned  to  the  command  of 
the  fifth  district,  296. 

Assumes  command  of  fifth 
military  district,  November 
28,  1867,  547. 


Hancock,  W.  S.,  order  of,  on 

assuming  command,  547. 
Nominated  by  the  Democratic 
party  for    President,  1880, 

Brilliant  record  of,  674. 
Electoral  vote  for,  675. 
Cause  of  his  defeat  for  the 

Presidency,  675. 
Hardee,  William   J.,  evacuates 

Savannah,  209. 
Hardeman,    Thomas,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  96. 
Served   in    the    Confederate 

army,  9ti. 

Harden,  B.,  humor  of,  365. 
Harlan,    James,    attitude    re 
specting  conciliation,1861,79. 
Senator     Thirty-sixth     Con- 


Secretary  of  the  interior,  89. 
Statement  by.respecting  Pres 
ident  Lincoln's   opinion   of 
the  Niagara  peace  negotia 
tions,  318. 

Harper's  Ferry,  loss  of,  189. 

Harris,  Barry,  murdered  in 
Alabama,  1870,  469. 

Harris,  Benjamin  G.,  casts  sole 
vote  against  Green  Clay 
Smith's  resolutions  respect 
ing  the  prosecution  of  the 
war,  316. 

Harris,  Ishara  G.,  governor  of 

Tennessee,  1861, 120. 
Message  to  legislature  of  Ten 
nessee  announcing  military 
league    with    the    Confed 
eracy,  120. 
Personal  sketch  of,  297,  298. 

Harris,   J.   Morrison,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  92. 
Gave  his  efforts  to  the  Union 
party,  92. 

Harris,    Thomas    L.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  63. 
Efforts  for  peace,  63. 

Hart,  Ossian  B.,  governor  of 
Florida,  523. 

Hartranft,  John  F.,  holds  Fort 
Hascall,  213. 

Haskin,  John  B.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  91. 

Hastings,  Warren,  scene  at  trial 
of,  355. 

Hatteras,  Fort,  fall  of,  1861, 165. 

Hatton,  Robert,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  95. 
Confederate  general,  95. 

Hawkins,   George  S.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72 
Cites   the   withdrawal    of 
Florida  as  ground  for  indif 
ference  to  compromise,  72. 
Declines  to  serve  on  commit 
tee  of  one  from  each  state, 
December,  1860,  72,  82. 
Sketch  of,  99. 

Hawkins,  R.  C.,  service  in  expe 
dition  against  Hatteras,  1861, 
164. 

Hawley,  Joseph  R.,  his  reason 
for  voting  for  the  civil 
rights  bill,  629. 

Hayes,  R.  B.,  declared  elected 

President,  666. 
President  de  facto  not  de  jure, 


Sketch  of,  669. 
Administration  of,  670-672. 
Vetoed  silver  bill  of  1878,  672. 
Hay  John,  bearer  of  President 
Lincoln's  letter  of  July  18, 
1864,  318. 

Heintzelman,   Samuel    P.,    at 
Williamsburg,  181. 


INDEX. 


711 


Hemphill,  John,  senator  Thir 

ty-sixth  Congress,  89. 
Confederate  senator,  89. 
Henderson,  John    B.,   counsel 
for  the  State  of  Missouri  in 
the  Cu  minings  case,  251. 
Interview    of     the      author 
with,  relating  to  impeach 
ment    trial    of     President 
Johnson,  594. 

Considerations    affecting    vote 
of,   on  impeachment  trial, 
594. 
Hendricks,  Thomas  A.,  Seward's 

tribute  to,  1888,  274. 
Senator  from  Indiana,  356. 
Nominated     Vice-President, 

683. 

Vice-President,  1885,  684. 
Henry,  Fort,  capture  of,  175. 
Henry,      Gustavus,      member 
Tennessee  military  league 
commission,  1861,  130. 
Henry,  Patrick,  attitude  toward 

slavery,  41,  43. 
Herrick,  Anson,  votes  for  thir 

teenth  amendment,  326. 
Herron,  Andrew   S.,  removed 
from  office  by  General  Sher 
idan,  544. 

Cause  of  removal  of,  544. 
Hewitt,  Abram  S.,  leads  move 
ment  against  use  of  army 
at  the  polls,  629,  631. 
Chairman  national    commit 

tee,  1876,  630. 
In  charge  of  the  army  bill  in 

the  House,  1877,  630. 
Speech  of  March  3,1879,  re 
specting  the  use  of  soldiers 
at  the  polls,  631,  632. 
Member  of  the  committee  on 

the  electoral  count,  637. 
Remarks  in,  643,  644. 
Submits  a  plan,  645. 
Hickman,  John,  member  Thir 

ty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
Characterized,  75. 
Hicks,  T.  H.,  as  governor  of 
Maryland,  endeavors  to  pre 
vent  passage  of  troops,  152. 
Hill,  Benjamin  H.,  303. 
Advocates  electoral  commis 

sion  bill  in  the  Senate,  649. 
Hill,  Elias,  beaten  by  Ku-Klux, 

466. 
Hill,  James,  secretary  of  state, 

Mississippi,  532. 

Hill,  Joshua,   member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress  from  Geor 


gia,  74. 
Dist 


trustful  of  secession  as  a 
remedy,  74. 
A  Union  man,  96. 
Hilliard,  George  S.,  member  of 
the  Massachusetts  constitu 
tional  convention  of   1850, 
586. 

Billiard,   H.  W.,    Confederate 

commissioner  to  negotiate 

military  league  with  Ten 

nessee,  1861,  120. 

Hilton  Head,  Union  occupation 

of,  166. 
Hindman,  Thomas  C.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
Attitude  respecting  the  Crit- 

tenden  compromise,  78. 
An  irreconcilable,  96. 
Hoar,  George   F.,  member  of 
committee  of   Congress  to 
compose  affairs  in  Louisi 
ana,  569. 
Member    of    committee    on 

electoral  count,  637. 
Remarks  in,  645. 


Hoar,  George  F.,  approves  final 

result,  647. 

Member    electoral    commis 
sion,  650. 

Hoadley,  George,  counsel  for 

Mr.  Tilden  in  the  Louisiana 

case  before    the    electoral 

commission,  655. 

Hoge-Reed   contested  election 

case,  465. 

Hoge,  S.  L.,  chosen  associate 
justice  supreme  court  of 
South  Carolina,  504. 
Holcombe,  James  P.,  relation 
of,  to  the  Niagara  peace 
conference,  317. 

Holden,  William  W.,  provision 
al  governor  of  North  Caro 
lina,  295. 
Authority  conferred   on,  as 

such,  348. 

Proclamation    by,   as  provi 
sional    governor  of  North 
Carolina,  June  12,  1866,  384. 
Sketch  of,  386. 

Career  of,  as  provisional  gov 
ernor,  387. 

His  efforts  against  disorders 
in  North  Carolina  as  gov 
ernor  by  election,  457-459. 
His  disregard  of  the  writ  of 

habeas  corpus,  458,  459. 
Impeachment  of,  459. 
Vote  at  his  election  as  gov 
ernor  of    North    Carolina, 
1868,  497. 

Holland,  Clark,  murder  of,  566. 
Holman,    William  S.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  76. 
Homestead  system,  formulated 
as  a  political  issue  by  Free 
Soil  Democracy,  694. 
Act  establishing,  694. 
Hood,  John  B.,  31. 
Confederate  service  in  Geor 
gia,  207,  208. 

Tennessee  campaign,  1864, 209. 
Hooker,  Charles  E.,  attorney- 
general,  Mississippi,  527. 
Hooker,  Joseph,  31. 
At  Williamsburg,  181. 
Commanding  the  army  of  the 

Potomac,  196. 
At  battles  of  Wilderness  and 

Chancellorsville,  197, 198. 
At  Lookout  Mountain,  202. 
House  of  Representatives,  com 
position  of,  695,  696. 
House  of  Representatives,  dedi 
cation  ot  new  hall,  26. 
Declares  the  Democratic  can 
didates    elected,    March    3, 
1877,  668. 

Houston,  George  S.,  31. 
Member     Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress  from  Alabama,  74. 
Distrustful   of  secession  as  a 
remedy  for  Southern  ills,  74. 
Sketch  of,  97. 

Houston  Samuel,  attitude  to 
ward  the  Union,  98. 
Governor  of  Texas,  1861,  116. 
His  ability,  296. 
Biographical  sketch  of,  300- 

Howard,  Francis  Key,  his  ar 
rest,  226. 

Howard,  Oliver  O.,  at  Chancel 
lorsville,  198. 

On  the  march  to  the  sea,  208. 
Commissioner  of   the  Freed- 

men's  Bureau,  446. 
Howell,  W.  T.,  murder  of,  566. 
Howe,  Timothy  O.,  speech  in 
Senate,  Jan.  10,  1866,  350-352. 
Sketch  of,  354. 


Howe,  Timothy  0.,  his  debate 
with   Reyerdy  Johnson  re 
specting  issues  growing  out 
of  the  war,  355-361. 
Compared     with     Thaddeus 

Stevens,  365. 

Huggins,  A.  P.,  Ku-Klux  out 
rage  upon,  472,  473. 
Hughes,  George  W.,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Attitude  respecting  secession, 

72. 

Hughes,  James,  takes  part  in 
debate   on  the  Lecompton 
constitution,  Dec.  1857,  27. 
Humphreys,  West  W.,  impeach 
ment  of,  585. 

Humphries,  B.  G.,  elected  gov 
ernor  of  Mississippi,  1865, 
392. 

His  recommendations  respect 
ing  status  of  the  negro,  392. 
His  career,  390. 
Resists  order  removing  him 
from  office  of  governor  of 
Mississippi,  527. 
Hunnicutt,  James  W.,  radical 

leader  in  Virginia,  488. 
Charged  with  incendiary  lan 
guage,  489. 

Hunter,  Robert  M.  T.,  personal 
sketch  of,  as  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  70. 
Secretary    of    state  for  the 

Confederate  States,  87. 
Vote  in  committee  of  thirteen 
on  Jefferson  Davis'  propo 
sition,  115. 
His  instructions  to  Mason  and 

Slidell,  275. 

Confederate  commissioner  at 
the  Hampton  Roads  confer 
ence,  333. 

Hunt9n,  Eppa,  member  of  com 
mittee    on    the     electoral 
count,  637. 
Remarks  in,  647. 
Member  electoral  commission, 

650. 
Proposition  in  the  electoral 

commission,  656. 
Hunt-Sheldon    contested  elec 
tion  case,  report  in,  explain 
ing  falling  off  in  Republican 
vote  in  Louisiana,  552. 
Huntsville,  capture  of,  178. 
Hutchins,  Wells  A.,  votes  for 
thirteenth  amendment,  326. 
Impeachment  of  Wm.  Blount, 
583 ;  of  Judge  Peck,  584  ;  of 
Judge   Pickering,   584;     of 
Samuel  Chase,  584 ;  of  West 
W.  Humphreys,  585. 
Impeachment      of     President 

Johnson,  581-594. 
Vote  of  senators  on  trial  of, 

591. 
Incidents   of  minor    history 

of,  591-594. 

Considerations  affecting  votes 
of  senators  upon  trial  of, 
592-594. 

Imports,  1860-1883, 1884,  138-140. 
Inauguration  of  Cleveland  and 

Jefferson  contrasted,  684. 
Industries,  effect  of  legislation 

upon,  691. 
Insurrection,  what  constitutes 

it,  145. 

Overt  acts  of,  146. 
Proclamation,  Aug.  16,  1861, 
declaring  states  in  state  of, 
242. 

Interest,  joint  resolution  of 
March  17,  1864,  to  provide 
for  payment  of,  135. 


712 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Internal  revenue,  system  of, 
for  Revolutionary  war  debt, 
129 

Act  of  June  30, 1864, 140. 
Interpellation  of  foreign  pow 
ers,  Mr.  Seward's   instruc 
tions  respecting,  262. 
Intervention,    foreign,   appre 
hension   of,  and  causes  of 
prevention,  1861,  260. 
Question  of,  in   Swiss  affair, 

1847,  260,  261. 

Intimidation    at     presidential 
election  of  1868    in  Louis 
iana,  551,  552. 
Iron-clad  ships,  172. 
Irrepressible  conflict,  51. 
Issues,  political,  1864, 618. 
1868,  619,  620- 
1872,  627,  628. 
1876,  628,  629. 

Growing  out  of  the  war,  con 
stituting  theme  of  debate 
during  second  decade,  354. 
Involved  in  the  Trent  affair, 

288. 

luka,  battle  at,  191. 
Iverson,  Alfred  .personal  sketch 
of,  as  senator  Thirty-sixth 
Congress,  70. 
Attitude     respecting    peace 

settlement,  79. 
Character  and  career,  87. 
Iowa,    surrender    of    fugitive 
charged  with  crime  refused 
in,  109. 

Ireland,  the  lesson  of,  238. 
Iredell,  James,  attitude  respect 
ing  slavery,  41,  43. 
Iron-clad  oath,  its  character  as 
a  prescriptive  measure,  256, 
257. 

The  author's  fight  for  its  re 
peal,  257. 

Enacted  July  2, 1862, 602. 
Its  terms,  602. 
Modified  form,  604,  605. 
A  peculiar  feature  of,  609. 
Passed  upon  by  the  supreme 
court  in  ex-parte  Garland, 
615. 

Repealed,  616. 

Jackson.  Andrew,  proclamation 
of,  1832,  against  nullifica 
tion,  145. 

Jackson,  Claiborne  F.,  govern 
or  of  Missouri,  1861,  294. 
Jackson,  Fort,  capture  of,  193. 
Jackson,  James,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  96. 
Chief  justice  of  Georgia,  96. 
Jackson,  Thomas  J.,  31. 
In  the  Shenandoah  valley,  183. 
Flanks  McClellan  at  battle  of 

Mechanicsville,  185. 
At  Cedar  Mountain,  187. 
At  Chancellorsville,  197. 
General  Lee's  letter  to,  198. 
Death  from  wounds  in  battle. 

198, 199. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  attitude  re 
specting     importation     of 
slaves  into  Virginia,  37. 
His  estimate  of  slavery,  41. 
Position  as  to  slavery  exten 
sion,  42. 
President,  43. 

Alarmed  by  the  opposition  to 
the  admission  of  Missouri, 
45. 

Authorship  of  Kentucky  res 
olutions  of  1798, 102. 
His    views    respecting  state 

rights,  102. 

Questions  involved  in  his  elec 
tion  to  the  presidency,  105. 


Jefferson,  Thomas,  sentiment 
respecting  continental 
paper  currency,  128. 

Milton,  Locke,  and  Algernon 
Sidney  prototypes  of,  680. 

Democratic  platform  of  1884 
inherited  from  the  days  of, 
680. 

His  inauguration  a  contrast 
to  that  of  Grover  Cleveland, 
684. 

Jenkins,  Albert  G.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 

Attitude  toward  secession, 
72,  74. 

Confederate  general,  93. 
Jenkins,    Charles     J.,    elected 
governor  of  Georgia  during 
reconstruction,  509. 

Opposition  of,  to  reconstruc 
tion  acts,  509. 

Removed  from  office  of  gov 
ernor  by  Gen.  Meade,  510. 
Jenkins,  Horatio,  effort  by, to  re 
move  Gov.  Reed,  of  Florida, 
by  impeachment,  518. 
Jocelyn,  Simeon  S.,  effort  for 
education  of   colored  peo 
ple,  40. 
Johnston,  Albert  S.,  31. 

Killed  at  Shiloh,  177. 
Johnson,  Andrew,  31. 

As  President,  endeavored  to 
blend  reconciliation  with 
reconstruction,  34. 

Personal  sketch  of,  as  senator 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  71. 

His  devotion  to  the  Union,  89. 

Appointed  military  governor 
of  Tennessee,  with  the  rank 
of  brigadier-general,  176. 

Approves  sentence  of  mili 
tary  commission  in  the 
case  of  Milligan,  230. 

Seward's  tribute  to,  1868,  274. 

His     reconstruction    policy, 

346. 

Johnson,  President,  limitations 
of  amnesty  in  proclamation 
Of  1865,  346,  347. 

Appoints  W.  W.  Holden  pro 
visional  governor  of  North 
Carolina,  347,  348. 

States  constitutional  grounds 
of  his  reconstruction  policy, 
348. 

Recognizes  reconstructed  gov 
ernment  of  Louisiana,  349. 

Proclamations  raising  block 
ade,  349. 

Recognizes  reconstructed  gov 
ernment  of  Arkansas,  349. 
Recognizes  reconstructed  gov 
ernment  of  Virginia,  349. 

Vetoes  bill  for  negro  suffrage 
in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
376. 

Vetoes  the  reconstruction 
act,  376,  377. 

Sketch  of,  381. 

Remarks  accompanying  sig 
nature  of  bill  restoring 
Tennessee  to  her  Federal 
relations,  382,  383. 

His  policy  in  North  Carolina, 

Letters  of,  to  Governor 
Sharkey  on  plan  of  recon 
struction  of  Mississippi,  391. 

Urges  ratification  by  South 
Carolina  of  thirteenth 
amendment,  414. 

Vetoes  Freedmen's  Bureau 
bill  of  Feb.,  1866,  444,  445. 

Condition  of  affairs  at  ac 
cession  to  presidency  of,  580. 


Johnson,  President,  why  se 
lected  for  vice-presidency, 
580. 

Political  views  of,  580. 

Cause  of  Republican  quarrel 
with,  581. 

Proceedings  preparatory  to 
impeachment  of,  581,  583. 

Impeachment  of,  585-594. 

Interview  of,  with  Senators 
Johnson  and  Grimes  during 
impeachment  proceedings, 
593. 

Johnson,  Reverdy,  testimony 
as  to  Calhoun's  views  on  se 
cession,  101. 

Views  respecting  belligerent 
status  of  the  insurgents, 
244. 

Counsel  for  the  plaintiff  in 
error  in  the  Cummings  case, 

Of  counsel  in  ex-parte  Gar 
land,  256. 
Proposed   member  of  peace 

commission,  1861,  315. 
Sketch  of,  355. 

His  debate  with  T.  O.  Howe, 
growing  out  of  the  war, 
355-361. 

Conferences  at  house  of,  dur 
ing  impeachment   trial   of 
President  Johnson,  592,  593. 
John  Brown  raid,  50. 
Johnson,  Cave,  postmaster-gen 
eral     in     President  Folk's 
cabinet,  47. 
Character  as  a  member    of 

Congress,  297. 

Johnson,    Herschel   V.,   nomi 
nated  Vice-President,  60. 
Johnson,  James,  appointed  by 
President     Johnson      provi 
sional  governor  of  Georgia, 
June  17, 1865,  397. 
Calls  convention,  1865,  397. 
Johnson,   Robert   W.,   senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  71. 
Attitude  respecting  secession, 

71. 

Johnston,  Joseph  E.,  31. 
At  Bull  Run,  155, 156. 
In    command     in    northern 

Virginia,  179. 
Seriously  wounded,  185. 
Georgia  campaign,  1864, 206. 
Surrenders,  April,  1865,  212. 
Jones,    Charles    W.,     senator 
from    Florida,    sketch  of, 
524. 

Jones,  George  W.,  attempt  to 
cut  off  debate  on  Lecomp- 
ton,  1857,  27,  57. 
Jones,  James  C.,  297. 
Joyce,  Charles  H.,  takes  part  in 
debate   on  decision  of  the 
electoral  commission,  657. 
Juries,  right  to  serve  on,  re 
fused  to  f  reedmen  in  Ten 
nessee,  1866,  382. 
Different  policie*  of  Generals 
Sheridan  and  Hancock  re 
specting    construction   of, 
548. 
Disqualifications    under  act 

June  17, 1862,  603. 
Jurors,  test  oath  for,  603. 
Efforts  to  remove  disqualifi 
cations,  603, 604. 
Test  oath  disqualification  re 
pealed,  616. 

Jury,  trial  by,  action  of  the 
secretary  of  war  respecting, 
1862,224. 

Fair  jury  trials  obstructed 
by  test  oath  system,  603. 


INDEX. 


713 


Jury,  trial  by,  Democracy  of 
America  found  in  union  o± 
public  freedom  with,  603. 
In  France,  604. 
In  Algiers,  604. 
In  Belgium,  604. 
Cause  and  proof  of  civiliza 
tion  and  liberty,  604. 
Justice,    James    M.,    outrage 
upon,  by  Ku-Klux,  460,  461. 
Kansas,  attempt  to  force  sla 
very  on,  56. 

Kansas-Nebraska     bill     intro 
duced,  1853,  49. 
Kearney,    Philip,  at  battle  of 

Williamsburg,  181. 
Kearsarge,   the,   victory    over 

the  Alabama,  211. 
Keitt,   Lawrence   M.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
Sketched,  74,  94. 
Altercation  with  Grow,  75,  97. 
Utterances  in  South  Carolina 

secession  convention,  110. 
Meeting  with  John  C.  Breck- 

enridge,  1855,  410. 
Kelley,  William  D.,  objection 

from,  660. 

Kellogg -McEnery  contest  for 
control  of  Louisiana  gov 
ernment,  562-510. 
Kellogg,  W.  P.,  inaugurated 
governor  of  Louisiana,  1873, 
564. 

Asked  to  abdicate,  567. 
His  police  force  routed,  567. 
Takes  refuge  in  the  custom 

house,  567. 
Reinstated  and  supported  by 

United  States  tro9ps,  568. 
Character  of   administration 

of,  569. 

Kennedy,  Anthony,  vote  on  the 
Clark     amendment  to   the 
Crittendeii  compromise,  79. 
Kentucky,  feeling  in,  respect 
ing  secession,  1861, 153. 
Military   operations  in,  1862, 

174,  190,  191. 

Resolutions  of,  1798,  bearing 
upon  the  doctrine  of  seces 
sion,  102, 104. 
Key,  David  M.,  member  of  the 

Hayes  cabinet,  670. 
King,  Austin  A.,  votes  forthir- 

teenth  amendment,  326. 
King,  Preston,  devotee  of  anti- 
slavery,  87. 
Kingston,  Jesse,  Rev.,  shot  by 

Ku-Klux,  471. 

King,  William,  statue  of,  26. 
Kinney,  John  F.,  urges  prose 
cution  of  the  war,  1865,  314. 
Kirk-Bergen  rebellion,  458. 
Knott,  J.  Proctor,  offers  posse 
comitatus  clause  as  amend 
ment  to  the  Hewitt  army 
bill,  630. 

Moves  for  select  committee  on 
the  electoral  count,  1876, 637. 
Offers  resolution  of  March  3, 
1877,  declaring  Democratic 
candidates  elected,  668. 
Ku-Klux,  outrages  by,  451-479. 
Origin  of,  453. 
Methods  of,  455. 
Outrages  in  North  Carolina, 

456,  457,  460-462. 
Alabama,  468. 
Mississippi,  472,  473. 
Tennessee,  474. 
Arkansas,  475. 
Texas,  475. 

In  Louisiana,  1868,  552. 
Attempts  at  suppression  of, 
in  North  Carolina,  457. 

45 


Ku-Klux,     responsibility    for, 

463,  475. 
Kunkel,    Jacob    M.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Attitude  toward  secession,  72. 
Lakin,   A.  S.  Rev.,  his  experi 
ence  with  Ku-Klux,  471. 
Lamar,  L.  Q.   C.,  effect  of  his 

oratory,  64. 

Member    Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  74. 

Character  as  a  debater,  74. 
Present  at  the  Keitt-Grow  al 
tercation,  76. 
Career  after  the  war,  97. 
Secretary  of  the  interior,  303. 
In   the   Democratic  conven 
tion  of  Mississippi,  1875,  533. 
Land  Public- 
Its  area,  692. 
Acquisition  of,  692. 
Cost  of,  692,  693. 
Disposition  of,  692,  693. 
Receipts  from,  692, 693. 
Farm  acreage,  693. 
Area  remaining.  693. 
Pre-emption  laws,  694. 
Homestead  system,  694. 
Homestead  law,  694. 
Railroad  land  grant  system, 

694. 

Unearned  railroad  grants,  695. 
Proper  disposition   of  same, 

695. 
Landrum,   John    M.,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  95. 
Lane,  Henry  S.,  genius  of  west 
ern  politics,  356. 
Lane,  James  H.,  genius  of  west 
ern  politics,  356. 
Lane,  Joseph,  nominated  Vice- 
President,  60. 

Senator     Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  72. 
Delegate   from   Territory  of 

Oregon,  90. 

Incident  in   the  House,  De 
cember,  1857,  90. 
Larrabee,  Charles  H.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  99. 
Sketch  of,  99. 
Latham,  M.  W.,  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  72. 
Labored  for  peace,  72,  76. 
Law  of  nations  vs.  the  Constitu 
tion,  244. 
Lawrence,  Wm.  member  of  com 
mittee  of  investigation  pre 
liminary  to  impeachment  of 
President  Johnson,  581. 
Lawton,  Alex.  R.,  seized  Fort 
Pulaski  by  order  of  Gov 
ernor  Brown,  1861, 304. 
Lazear,  Jesse,  favors  an  armis 
tice  and  delegates,  1864,  317. 
Leake,    Shelton    F.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Member     Confederate     Con 
gress,  92. 

Leach,  J.  T.,  proposes,  May  23, 
1864,  in  Confederate  Con 
gress  an  armistice  and  com 
missioners,  319. 

Le  Blonde,  Frank,  favors  com 
missioners,  1864,  317. 
Lecompton    constitution,    au 
thor's  speech  against,  De 
cember,  1857,  27,  56,  57. 
Attempt  to   cut  off   debate, 

December,  1857,  27, 56. 
Lee,  Robert  E.,  31. 
At  Mechanicsville,  185. 
Brilliant  movements  at  battle 

of  Chancellorsville,  197. 
Crosses  the  Potomac,  200. 
At  Gettysburg,  201. 


Lee,  Robert  E.,  his  last  efforts 
before  Richmond,  213. 

Surrenders,  214. 

In  supreme  command,  311. 

Resemblance  to  Washington, 
311. 

His  anxiety  for  peaceful,  hon 
orable  settlement  long  be 
fore  surrender,  314. 

Surrenders  to  General  Grant, 

578. 

Letcher,  John,  as  governor, 
proclaims  the  secession  of 
Virginia,  119. 

Biographical  sketch   of,  299, 

Governor  of   Virginia,   1861, 

294;  1864,295. 

Levee  bonds  of  Louisiana,  con 
troversy  respecting,  544. 
Levy,  William  M.,  debates  the 
electoral  commission.Louis- 
iana  decision,  657. 
Liberty,  constitutional  opposi 
tion  to   the  administration 
in  a  representative  govern 
ment  a  safeguard  of,  28. 

Attitude  of  the  two  great 
parties  during  the  war  with 
respect  to  personal,  219. 

Contest  for,  after  the  war,  2-10. 

Success  of  the  party  of,  240. 

Muniments  of,  698,  699. 
Lincoln   Abraham,   planned  a 
peace  administration,  30. 

Desired  to  blend  reconcilia 
tion  with  reconstruction, 

Early  theory  as  to  disposition 

to  be  made  of  emancipated 

slaves,  53. 
Republican  candidate  for  the 

presidency,  1860,  60. 
Elected  President,  61. 
Inauguration  of,  100. 
Letters  to  A.  H.  Stephens, 

1860, 114, 122. 
Emancipation    proclamation, 

January  1,  1863, 123. 
Proclamation  calling  for  75,- 

000  men,  April  15,  1861,  150, 

Proclamation  of  blockade, 
April,  1861, 152. 

His  spirit  of  regard  for  civil 
liberty,  227. 

Proclamation,  August  16, 1861, 
declaring  the  state  of  insur 
rection,  242. 

Scenes  of  assassination  of,  290. 

Response  of,  December  12, 
1862,  to  Fernando  Wood's 
proposition  to  suspend  mili 
tary  operations,  316. 

Letter,  July  18,  1864,  respect 
ing  terms  of  peace,  318. 

Disposition  to  end  the  war  on 
"liberal  terms," 318. 

His  opinion  of  the  Niagara 
peace  negotiations,  318. 

Letter  of,  to  F.  P.  Blair,  Jan 
uary  18,  1865,  respecting 
peace  negotiations,  331. 

At  the  Hampton  Roads  con 
ference,  333. 

Amnesty  proclaimed  by,  337. 

Message  of,  Dec.  8,  1863,  337, 
338. 

Proclamation  of,  July  8,  1864, 
causes  dissatisfaction,  341. 

Remarks  respecting  recon 
struction,  April  11, 1865,  342. 

General  amnesty  his  policy 
of  reconstruction,  346. 

Opinion  on  permanence  of 
the  Union,  352. 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Lincoln,  Abraham,  with  Seward 
in  the  minority  in  asserting 
states  rights,  353. 

His  theory  of  the  war,  363. 

Letter  of  advice  to  Governor 
Hahn,  391. 

Letter  of,  January  30,  1864, 
respecting  reconstruction 
of  Arkansas,  436. 

Remarks  respecting  extension 
of  elective  franchise  to  col 
ored  persons,  343,  344. 

Remarks  respecting  question 
of  status  of  seceded  states, 
344. 

Remarks  respecting  essen 
tials  to  validity  of  constitu 
tional  amendment,  344. 

The  assassination  of,  344. 

Tribute  to,  345. 

His  policy  of  charity,  599. 
Lindsay,   K.    B.,  elected  gov 
ernor  of  Alabama,  469. 

Statement  by,  respecting  Ku- 
Klux,  469. 

Vote  at  election  as  governor 

of  Alabama,  516. 
Littlefield  &  Deweese,  "lobby 

lawyers,"  498,  499. 
Littlefield,  M.  S.,  associate  of 
Governor  Reed,  of  Florida, 
524. 

Livingston,  Robert  R.,  statue 
of,  36. 

Course  in  the  negotiations  for 
the  Louisiana  purchase,  43. 
Loan  of  January,  1847, 137. 

March,  1848, 127. 

Loan  act  of  1846, 127 ;  1837,  131 ; 
1842, 131 ;  1857, 131 ;  1858, 131 ; 
1860,  131,  132;  Feb.  8,  1861, 
132 ;  March  2, 1861, 133 ;  July 
17,  1861,  132;  August  5,  1861, 
132;  February  25,  1862,  133; 
July  11,  1862,  134;  March  3, 
1863,  134,  135 ;  March  3, 1864, 
135 ;  June  30, 1864, 135 ;  March 
3, 1865, 136. 
Locke,  John,  a  prototype  of 

Jefferson,  680. 

Logan,  John  A.,  member  of 
Thirty -sixth  Congress,  76. 

Incident  at  the  battle  of  Bel- 
mont,  95. 

At  Bull  Run,  157, 158. 

One  of  the  managers  in  the 
impeachment  of  President 
Johnson,  585. 

Long,  Alexander,  re-offers,  1864, 
the    peace    resolutions   of 
fered  by  the  author  in  1861, 
317. 
Longstreet,  James,  31. 

At  Mechanicsville,  186. 
Lord,    Eleazur,    originator   of 
New- York     free     banking 
system,  143. 

Louisiana,  question  of  acquisi 
tion  of,  43. 

Convention  and  ordinance  of 
secession,  115. 

Loyal  government  of,  341. 

Recognition  of,  proposed,  342. 

Remarks  of  President  Lincoln 
respecting  recognition  of 
loyal  government  of,  343, 
344. 

Reconstructed  government 
of,  recognized  by  President 
Johnson,  349. 

Military  rule  in,  1862,  425. 

Movements  toward  state  re 
organization,  426. 

Convention,  1864,  428. 

Gubernatorial  election,  427. 

New  Orleans  riot  of  1866,  431. 


Louisiana,  outrages  in,  1868, 433. 

New  Orfeans  riot  of  1868,  433. 

Confiscation  in,  434. 

Part  of  the  fifth  military  dis 
trict  under  the  reconstruc 
tion  acts,  543. 

Removal  of  civil  officers  in, 
1867,  544,  545,  547,  549. 

Registration  in,  1867,  544. 

Removal  of  Wells,  governor 
of,  545. 

Classes  excluded  from  regis 
tration  in,  546. 

Meeting  of  constitutional 
convention  in,  548. 

Constitution,  1868,  provisions 
of,  549. 

Financial  condition  of,  1867-8, 
550. 

Readmission  of,  to  represent 
ation,  550. 

Government  of,  1868-1874, 550- 
570. 

Outrages  and  riots  in,  551, 552, 
565-567. 

Difficulties  between  federal 
officials  and  officials  of  state 
of,  554-558. 

Legislative  expenses  in,  558, 
559. 

Debt  and  liabilities  of,  570. 

J.  S.  Black's  remarks  upon 
carpet-bag  rule  in,  625. 

Returns  from,  in  the  electoral 
count  of,  1877,  637. 

Electoral  vote  of,  considered 
by  the  electoral  commis 
sion,  1877,  655. 

Decision  of  electoral  com 
mission  upon  electoral  vote 
of,  1877,  655. 

Vote  of,  counted  for  Hayes, 
660. 

Case  before  electoral  com 
mission  compared  with  that 
of  Florida,  660. 

Its  returning  board,  660. 
Lo ve j  oy ,  Owen,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress  from  Illinois, 
75. 

Personal  sketch  of,  75. 
Love,  Peter  L.,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  96. 
Lowell,  Charles  W .,  postmaster 
at  New  Orleans  and  mem 
ber  of  custom-house  faction, 
554,  560,  561. 
Loyal  league,  454. 
Lubbock,  F.  R.,   governor   of 

Texas,  295. 
Luke,   Wm.   C.,    murdered   in 

Alabama,  1870,  469. 
Lumpkin,  Joseph  H.,  113,  303. 
Lyon,    Nathaniel,   services    in 

Missouri,  163. 

Lyons,  Lord,  note  in  behalf  of 
prisoners  in  Fort  Lafayette, 

British  minister,  dispatch  on 

the  Trent  affair  to,  286-387. 
Material  progress,  685-699. 
McAllister,  Archibald* votes  for 
thirteenth  amendment,  326. 
McBride,    Cornelius,   Ku-Klux 

outrage  upon,  473. 
McCall,  George  A.,  at  Mechan- 

iosville,  185. 

McCardle,  W.  H.,  arrest  of,  526. 
McClellan.Geo.  B.,  in  command, 

1861, 159. 

Author's  speech  of  January, 
1862,  in  answer  to  strictures 
upon,  159-162. 

Reorganizes   army   of  Poto 
mac,  162. 
Campaign  of  1862, 179-192. 


McClellan,  George  B.,  besieges 

Yorktown,  180. 
At  Sharpsburg,  158. 
At  Antietam,  188. 
Superseded  by  General  Burn- 
side,  192. 

Seward's    opinion    of,      ex 
pressed  in  1868,  274. 
Candidate  for  the  presidency, 

617. 

Reasons  for  selection  of,  by 
the   Democratic   party  for 
the  candidacy,  617. 
McClernand,  John  A.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  95. 
In  command  army  of  the  Ten 
nessee,  194. 

McCrary,  George  W.,  member 
House  committee  on  diffi 
culties  in  Louisiana,  557. 
Member  of  committee  on  elec 
toral  count,  637. 
Submits  a  plan,  638. 
Remarks  in,  647. 
Member  of  the  Hayes  cabi 
net,  669. 

McCulloch,  Ben.,   Confederate 

service  in  Missouri,  1863, 174. 

McCutcheon,  J.  A.  Rev.,  driven 

away  by  Ku-Klux,  471. 
McDonald,  Joseph  E.,  one   of 
the  counsel  for  Milligan 
before  the  supreme  court, 
230. 
McDowell,  Irvin,  at  Bull  Run, 

154-156. 

Service  in  Virginia,  183. 
Assigned  to  the  command  of 

the  fourth  district,  396. 
Succeeds  General  Ord  in  com 
mand  of  fourth  military  dis 
trict,  527. 

McEnery,  John,  inaugurated 
governor  of  Louisiana,  1873, 
564. 

McEnery-Kellogg  contest  for 
the  government  of  Louis 
iana,  563-570. 

McEnery  legislature,  members 
of,  arrested  by  Kellogg 
party,  565. 

McFarland,  E.  I.,  and  Eustis, 
Geo.,  secretaries  of  Messrs. 
Slidell  and  Mason,  379. 
McFarland,  E.  I.,   taken  from 

Trent,  389. 

Letter  acknowledging  cour 
tesy  of  Captain  Wilkes,  381. 
McMahon,  John  A.,  debates  in 
the  House  the  electoral 
commission  Louisiana  ac 
tion,  657. 

McPherson,  James  B.,  com 
manding  army  of  the  Ten 
nessee,  206. 

McQueen,  John,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  94. 
Member    Confederate     Con 
gress,  94. 

McRae,  John  J.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
Sketch  of,  74,  97. 
Mackey,  O.  G.,  presides  at  con 
stitutional    convention    of 
South  Carolina,  1868,  503. 
Macon,  Fort,  capture  of,  168. 
Madison,   James,   his    attitude 

toward  slavery,  41,  43. 
Authorship  of  the   Virginia 

resolutions  of,  1798, 103. 
His  views  on  states  rights,  103. 
Exposition  of  the  Kentucky 

resolutions,  104. 
Attitude  in  the  constitutional 
convention  of  1787,  respect 
ing  slavery,  117. 


INDEX. 


715 


Madison,  James,  American  doc 
trine  on  right  of  search  laid 
down  by,  289. 
Magna  charta,  235. 
Magomn,  Beriah,  governor  of 

Kentucky,  1861,  294. 
Magrath,  A.  G.,  as  governor  of 
South  Carolina,  attempts 
to  re-establish  civil  order, 
1865,  411. 

Maine,  first  state  to  ratify  the 
thi  rteen  th  am  endment,  Feb . 
7, 1865,  329. 

Mallory,  Robert,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  73. 
Personal  sketch  of,  73. 
Discusses  question  of  limita 
tions.  January,  1865,  322. 
Mallory,    Stephen   B.,  senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Attitude  as  such  respecting 

secession,  72. 
Services  to  the  Confederacy, 

89. 

Malvern  Hill,  battle  of,  187. 
Mansfield,  Jos.  K.  P.,  in  com 
mand  department  of  Wash 
ington,  155. 

March  to  the  sea,  207-209. 
Desolation  following  thereon, 

395. 

Marcy,  Wm.  L.,  policy  respect 
ing  the  Declaration  of  Paris, 
266, 267. 

Maritime  law,  principles  of,  pro 
posed  by  the  United  States, 
1854,  266. 
Maritime  policy  of  the  CTnited 

States,  history  of,  265-273. 
Mr.  Seward's  declaration  of, 

Sept.  7,  1861,  272. 
Marshall,  Humphrey,  takes  part 
in  debate  in  the  House  upon 
the  Lecompton  constitution, 
December,  1857,  27. 
Marshall,  John  A,,  author   of 

The  American  BastiU,  225. 
Marshall,  Samuel  S.,  member  of 
committee  of  Congress  to 
visit  Louisiana  to  effect 
compromise  between  par 
ties,  569. 

Member  of  committee  of  in 
vestigation  preliminary  to 
impeachment  of  President 
Johnson,  581. 

Marshal  of  the  United    States 

for  North  Carolina,  conflict 

between}  and  the  military 

commander,  495. 

Marston,  Gilman,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  90. 
Military  service  to  the  Union, 

90. 

Martial    law   declared    in   the 
North  necessary  to  success 
ful  prosecution  of  the  war, 
223. 
Sphere   of,   declared  by  the 

supreme  court,  231. 
Martinsburg,  loss  of,  200. 
Marvin,     Wm.,   appointed    by 
President     Johnson     pro 
visional  governor  of  Florida 
349. 
Speech,     proclamation,     and 

message,  419,  420. 
Maryland,  attitude   respecting 

secession,  153. 
Invasion  of,  1862, 188. 
"  1863,  200. 
Mason,  George,  attitude  toward 

slavery,  41,  43. 

Mason,  James  M.,  personal 
sketch  of,  as  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  70. 


[  Mason,   James  M.,    associated 
with  Slidell  in  the  affair  of 
the  Trent,  87. 
Commissioner  of  the  Confed 
erate  States  to  England  and 
France,  1861,  275. 
His  instructions  as  such,  275. 
Embarks  on  the  Trent,  277. 
Captured  by  Capt.Wilkes,  279. 
Protest  against  arrest,  279. 
Letter  acknowledging  cour 
tesy  of  Capt.  Wilkes,  281. 
Imprisoned  in  Fort  Warren, 

281. 

Negotiations    following    ar 
rest  of,  286-290. 
Released,  292. 

Mason,  John  Y.,  as  minister  to 

France,  participates  in  the 

negotiations  respecting  the 

Declaration  of  Paris,  269. 

Massachusetts,  constitution  of, 

1780,  38. 

States  rights  in,  106. 
Personal  liberty,  bills  of,  107. 
Massacre  near  Coushatta,  La., 

August,  1874,  565. 
Master  and  apprentice  act,  Mis 
sissippi,  1865,  393. 
Matthews,  Stanley,  counsel  for 
Mr.  Hayes  before  the  elec 
toral  commission,  655. 
Maynard,  Horace,member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  73. 
Personal  sketch  of,  73. 
Minister  to  Turkey  and  post 
master-general,  95. 
Meade,  George  G.,  31. 
In   command  third  military 

district,  510. 
At  Gettysburg,  201. 
Assigned  to  the  command  of 

the  third  district,  296. 
Mechanicsville,  battle  of,  185. 
Meigs,   M.   C.,  his  services   as 
quartermaster-general,  214, 
216. 

Memminger,  C.  G.,  declaration 
in  the  secession  convention 
of  South  Carolina,  110. 
In  council  upon  question  of 
firing  upon  Fort  Sumter,  150. 
Meridian  riot,  472. 
Merrick,   Richard   T.,   counsel 
representing  Mr.  Tilden  be 
fore    the     electoral     com 
mission  in  the  Florida  case, 
655. 
Methodists,  persecution  of,  in 

Alabama,  471. 
Mexican  war,  cause  of,  48. 
Ultimate  effect  of,  on  slavery, 

48. 

Cost  of,  126. 

Financial  expedients  for  de 
fraying  expense  of,  127. 
Mexico,  suggestions  of  combi 
nation  of  North  and  South 
with  relation  to,  331,  333, 335. 
Michigan,  personal  liberty  bill, 

1855, 107. 
Miles,    W.    Porcher,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
Sketch  of,  74,  94. 
Offers  resolution  in  Confeder 
ate  Congress  that  peace  with 
the  states  severally  would 
be  revolutionary,  312. 
Military    commission,   persons 
arrested  for  disloyal  prac 
tices  to  be  tried  before,  1862, 
224. 

For  the  trial  of  Milligan,  228. 
For  the  trial  of  the  assassins 

of  President  Lincoln,  232. 
For  Virginia,  485. 


Military  districts,  commanders 

of,  295,296. 
Established  by  act  of  March 

2, 1867,  376. 
Powers  of  the  commanders, 

376,  378,  480. 
Military  incarcerations,  Ganson 

resolution  respecting,  233. 
Military  situation  at  the  end  of 

the  year  1864,  309-311. 
Miller,  S.  F.,  delivers  dissenting 
opinion     of    the    supreme 
court     in     the    Curnmings 
case,  252,  254,  255. 
Member    electoral     commis 
sion,  650. 

Milligan,  Lambdin  P.,  his  incar 
ceration  and  release,  227,232. 
Millson,  John  S.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,.  73. 
Union  services  of,  73. 
Personal  sketch  of,  73,  74, 182. 
Mills,  Roger  Q.,  opposes  elec 
toral  commission  bill  in  the 
House,  649. 
Milton,   John,  a    prototype  of 

Jefferson,  680. 
Governor  of  Florida,  1861,  294; 

1864,  295. 

Biographical  sketch  of,   417- 

419. 
Minnesota,  the  ship,  fight  with 

the  ram  Virginia,  170. 
Mint,  act  of  April  2, 1792,  estab 
lishing,  670. 

Mississippi,   secession    conven 
tion,  114. 

Ordinance  of  secession,  114. 

Campaign  in  1862,  191;  1863, 
194, 195. 

Military  operations  in,  1864, 
203. 

Temporary  reorganization  of, 
389. 

Provisional  government  of, 
389. 

Convention,  August,  1865,  391. 

The  Johnson  plan  of  reorgan 
izing,  391. 

Amendments  to  the  state  con 
stitution  of,  392. 

Ku-Klux  in,  472,  473. 

Part  of  the  fourth  military 
district  under  the  recon 
struction  acts,  525. 

Registration  in,  526. 

Constitutional  convention  in, 
526. 

Constitution  defeated,  527. 

Ratified,  529. 

Elections  in,  '1868-1875,  528-532. 

"National  Union  Republican" 

Sarty  in,  529. 
mission  of,  to  representa 
tion,  531. 
Taxes  and  expenditures,  532, 

533. 

Missouri,  admission  of,  45. 
Sympathy  with  seceding 

states,  153. 
Military   operations  in,  1861, 

163. 

Campaign  in,  1862, 174. 
Prescriptive  character  of  its 
constitution   as  revised  by 
the  convention  of  January, 

1865,  250, 251. 

The  prescriptive  oath  of,  613- 

615. 

Persecutions  in,  613,  615. 
Missouri  compromise,  45. 

Measure  for  repeal  of,  49. 
Mitchell,  Ormsby  M.,  captures 

Huntsville,  178. 

Mixed  schools  in  Louisiana,  bill 
for,  553. 


7i6 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Mobile  Bay,  naval  victory  in, 

210. 
Mob  of  6th  of   March,  1873,  in 

New  Orleans,  564. 
Moderation,  author's  plea  for, 

Monitor,  the,  battle    with   the 

Virginia  (Merrimac),  170,171. 

Monroe,  James,  attitude  toward 

slavery,  41,  43. 
Policy  of  his  administration 

in  acquiring  Florida,  44. 
Monroe,   John   T.,    mayor    of 

New  Orleans,  430. 
His  relation  to  the  massacre 

of  July  30, 1866,  431. 
Eemoved  from  mayoralty  of 
New   Orleans    by    General 
Sheridan,  544. 
Cause  of  removal  of,  544. 
Montgomery,  Wm.,  member  of 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  76. 
Moore,  Andrew  B.,  governor  of 

Alabama,  1861,  294. 
Moore,    Sydenham,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  97. 
Killed  in  the  Confederate  mil 
itary  service,  97. 
Moore,  Thomas  H.,  statement 
respecting  affairs  in  Geor 
gia,  1865,  395. 
Moore,  Thomas  O.,  governor  of 

Louisiana,  1861,  294. 
Moore,  Wm.  G.,  private  secre 
tary  of  President  Johnson, 
591. 

Morrill,  Justin  S.,member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
Skill  in  tariff  calculations,  75, 

90. 

Senator  from  Vermont,  90. 
Morris,  Edward  Joy,  efforts  in 
Thirty-sixth    Congress    to 
avert  war.  64. 

Morris,  George  M.,  command 
ing  the  Cumberland,  169. 
Morris,  Isaiah,  at  Bull  Run,  157, 

158. 
Morse,   Freeman   H.,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  90. 
Consul  to  London,  90. 
Moses,    Franklin    J.,   adjutant 
and  inspector-general  South 
Carolina,  503. 
Chief -justice,  South  Carolina, 

504. 

Moses,  Franklin  J.,  Jr.,  elected 
governor  of  South  Carolina, 
1872,  506. 

Morton,  Marcus,  member  of  the 
Massachusetts  constitution 
al  convention  of  1850,  586. 
Morton,  Oliver  P.,   energy  as 

governor,  297. 
Member  of  committee  on  the 

electoral  count,  637. 
Remarks  and  aspect  in  com 
mittee,  642,  643. 
Dissatisfied  with  the  result, 

648. 
Opposes  electoral  commission 

bill  in  the  Senate,  649. 
Member    electoral    commis 
sion,  656. 

Mower,  Joseph  A.,  in  command 
of  the  fifth  military  district, 
547. 

Munf ordville,  surrender  of,  191. 
Murphy,  Isaac,  elected  govern 
or  of  Arkansas,  1864,  436. 
Vetoes  pension  bill,  438. 
Murrah,   Pendleton,   governor 

of  Texas,  1864,  295. 
Myers,  Amos,  urges  persistent 
prosecution  of  the  war,  1865, 
314. 


Myers,  Joseph,  attorney-gen 
eral  Mississippi,  527. 

Nash,  Beverly,  statement  by,  at 
mass  meeting  at  Charleston, 
1867,  501. 

Nashville,  battle  of,  209. 

National  banks,  act  of  July  12, 
1870,  for  issuance  of  notes 
to,  137. 

Establishing  acts,  Feb,  25, 1863, 
141. 

June  3, 1864, 142. 
Origin  of  system  of,  143. 
Report   of  Secretary   Chase, 

Dec.,  1861,  respecting,  143. 
Letter  of  Orlando  B.  Potter 
to  Secretary  Chase,  Aug.  14, 
1861,  respecting  system  of, 
143. 

National  Union  Republican 
party  in  Mississippi,  529. 

Navy  of  the  United  States, 
class  disqualified  for  com 
mission  in,  616. 

Neagle,  N.  J.,  comptroller-gen 
eral  South  Carolina,  503. 

Negro,  competent  juror  in  Mis 
sissippi,  528. 

Nelson,  Homer  A.,  votes  for 
thirteenth  amendment,  326. 

Nelson,  Thomas  A.  R.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  73. 
Personal  sketch  of,  73. 
Member  of     committee     of 

thirty -three,  77. 
Counsel  for  President  John 
son  in    impeachment  trial, 
587. 

Nesmith,  James  W.,  senator 
from  Oregon,  356. 

Newbern,  capture  of,  167. 

New  Grenada,  its  blockade,  273. 

New  Jersey,  legislation  respect 
ing  fugitive  slaves,  109. 

New,  John  C.,  action  in  House 
on  electoral  commission, 
Louisiana  decision,  657. 

New  Madrid,  capture  of,  176. 

New  Orleans,  capture  of,  193. 

New-York,     personal     liberty 

bill,  107. 

Right  of  transit  with  slave 
denied  by  the  courts,  109. 

Niagara,  peace  conference  at, 
317. 

Niblack,  William  E.,  Seward's 
tribute  to,  1868,  274. 

Nicholson,  Alfred  O.  P.,  senator 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  71, 
89. 

Nodine,  John,  whipped  by  Ku- 
Klux,  461. 

Noell,  John  W.,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  96. 

Norfolk,  evacuation  of,  181. 

Notes,  United  States,  redemp 
tion  of,  in  coin,  671. 

North,  the,  strength  of,  214. 
Response  of  the,  to  call  for 

troops,  1861, 152. 
Mechanical  skill  of,  215. 

North    Carolina,   free   colored 

persons  voters  in,  1776,  42. 
Convention  and  ordinance  of 

secession,  120. 
Loyalty  in  western,  153. 
Operations  on  coast  of,  1861, 

164 ;  1862,  166. 

Dissatisfaction  with  adminis 
tration  of  Confederacy  near 
end  of  war,  312. 
Peace  resolutions  proposed  in 

legislature,  1864,  319. 
Contest  in,  upon  question  of 

secession,  1861,  383. 
Provisional  government,  384. 


North  Carolina,  annulment  of 
ordinance  of  secession,  385. 

Slavery  abolished,  385. 

Act  of  the  legislature,  March, 
1866,  respecting  the  negro, 
388. 

Disorders  in,  1868-1871,  455-463. 

Part  of  second  military  dis 
trict  under  the  reconstruc 
tion  acts,  494. 

Attempt  to  remove  civil  offi 
cers  in,  by  the  military  com 
mander,  495. 

Interference  of  the  military 
commander  with  U.  S.  mar 
shal  in  execution  of  process 
in,  495. 

Colored  persons  admitted  to 
the  jury  box,  496. 

Registration  in,  496-497. 

Constitutional  convention  in, 
496. 

Constitution  formed  under 
the  reconstruction  acts  in, 
496. 

Constitution  ratified,  497. 

State  officers  of,  elected,  497. 

Bribery  and  peculation  in, 
1867-1869,  497-499. 

Bonds  of,  499-500. 

Restoration    of,  to  full   fed 
eral  relations,  507. 
Northrup,  Milton  H.,  clerk  of 
House  committee  upon  the 
electoral  count,  639. 
Nullification.distinguishedfrom 
secession,  53. 

Advocated  by  Calhoun,  53. 

In  Ohio,  63. 

Jackson's   proclamation 

against,  145. 
Oath  of  allegiance,  338. 

Iron-clad,  its  character  as  a 
prescriptive  measure,  256, 
257. 

Of  loyalty,  no  utility  in,  250. 

Presented  by    the    Missouri 
constitutional     convention 
of  January,  1865,251. 
Oaths,  mode  of  administering, 
609. 

Self-nullifying,  609,  610. 

Abolition  desirable,  610. 

What  is  an,  611. 

Forms  of,  611. 

Political,  602-616. 

(See  iron-clad  oath  and  test 
oaths.) 

Remarks  on  familiar  and  fre 
quent  taking  of,  604-612. 
Ogbourne,   William  H.,  secre 
tary    of  Alabama  conven 
tion,  September,  1865,  404. 
O'Gorman,   Richard,   effort   in 
behalf  of  Colonel  Corcoran, 
243. 

"  Ohio  rebellion,"  1857,  81. 
Ohio,  refusal  to  surrender  fugi 
tives,  109. 

Threatened  invasion  of,  1862, 

190. 

Olds,  Edson  B.,  his  arrest,  226. 
Olmstead,  Charles  H.,  Conf  eder- 
•ate  service   defending  Fort 
Pulaski,  174. 
Opposition  party  necessary  to 

free  government,  28. 
Osborne,    Thomas  W.,  senator 

from  Florida,  522. 
Ord,  Edward  O.  C.,  assigned  to 
the  command  of  the  fourth 
district,  295. 

Assumes  command  of  the 
fourth  military  district 
under  the  reconstruction 
acts,  525. 


INDEX. 


717 


Ordinances  of  secession,  solem 
nity  of  proceedings  in  con 
ventions  adopting,  64. 

Question  of  validity  of,  dis 
cussed,  359. 

Ordinance  of  secession  adopt 
ed  in  South  Carolina,  108. 

Georgia,  111. 

Mississippi,  114. 

Florida,  115. 

Louisiana,  115. 

Alabama,  116. 

Texas,  116, 117. 

Arkansas,  119. 

Virginia,  119. 

North  Carolina,  120. 

Tennessee,  121. 

Annulled  in  Tennessee,  382. 

North  Carolina,  385. 

Mississippi,  392. 

Georgia,  397. 

Texas,  400. 

Alabama,  406. 

South  Carolina,  412. 

Florida,  420. 

Arkansas,  436. 

Action    of    Texas     constitu 
tional   convention   respect 
ing,  574,  575. 
"  Oberlin"  cases,  62,  93. 
Ochsenbein,  Ulrich,   words   in 
the   Swiss   Diet  respecting 
threatened  foreign   recog 
nition  of  seceding  cantons, 
1847-  260. 

O'Conor,  Charles, bondsman  for 
Jefferson  Davis,  579. 

Counsel  representing  Mr.  Til- 
den  before  the  electoral 
commission  in  the  Florida 
case,  655. 

Odell,  Moses  F.,  speaks  in  favor 
of  thirteenth  amendment, 
Jan.  9, 1865,  321. 

Votes  for  thirteenth  amend 
ment,  326. 
Oregon,  electoral  vote  of,  1877, 

664. 

Orr,  James  L.,  personal  sketch, 
27. 

Speaker  of  Thirty-sixth  Con 
gress,  55. 

One  of  the  South  Carolina 
treaty  commissioners,  1860, 
110. 

Effort  of,  in  Confederate  Con 
gress  toward  peace,  Jan 
uary,  1865,  313. 

Elected  governor  of  South 
Carolina,  1865,  413. 

Address  by  him  at  Columbia, 
S.  C.,  1867,  501. 

Address  at  Charleston,  S.  C., 
502. 

Addresses  constitutional  con 
vention,  South  Carolina, 
1868,  502. 

Address  on  retiring  from  the 

governorship,  1868,  504. 
Osterhous,   Peter    J.,   at    Pea 

Ridge,  174. 

Outrages  in  North  Carolina,  456, 
457,  460-462. 

In  Alabama,  468. 

In  Tennessee,  475. 

In  Arkansas,  475. 

In  Mississippi,  cause  of,  532. 

In  Louisiana,  1868,  551,  552. 

In  Texas,  report  of  General 
Sheridan  respecting,  572. 

Report  of  committee  of  con 
stitutional  convention  of 
Texas  respecting,  574,  575. 
Packard,  S.  B.,  inaugurated 
governor  of  Louisiana,  1873, 
664. 


Packard,   S.   B.,   contest   with 

McEnery,  562-570. 
Packard  legislature,  Louisiana, 

1872,  562. 

Paper  money,  continental  bills, 
128. 

United  States  notes,  133. 

National  bank  notes,  141. 

State  bank  notes,  142. 
Pardon,  conditions   of,   under 
President     Lincoln's     am 
nesty  proclamation,  337. 

Under    President    Johnson's 

proclamation,  347. 
Pardoning  power  and  the  four 
teenth  amendment,  601. 
Parker,    Niles     G.,    treasurer 

South  Carolina,  503. 
Parsons,   Lewis   E.,  statement 
by,  of  condition  of  people 
of  Alabama,  1865,  402. 

Appointed  by  President  John 
son,  provisional  governor  of 
Alabama,  June  21, 1865,  403. 

Acts  as  governor,  403. 

Superseded,  Dec.,  1865,  405. 

His  testimony  respecting  Ku- 

Klux  in  Alabama,  469. 
Parties,  issues  dividing  Demo 
cratic  and  Republican,  35. 

Attitude  of,  respecting  per 
sonal  liberty  during  the 
war,  219-240. 

Patton,  Robert  M.,  elected  gov 
ernor  of  Alabama,  1865,  406. 

Address  by,  upon  assumption 

of  duties,  407. 

Payne,  Henry  B.,  supporter  of 
Douglas  at  Charleston  con 
vention,  60. 

Chairman  of  select  committee 
HouseofRepresentativeson 
the  electoral  count,  1876,  637. 

Remarks  by  him  therein,  641, 
643,  644,  645. 

Member  electoral  commis 
sion,  650. 

Proposition  in  the  electoral 

commission,  656. 
Peace   conference  of  1861,  re 
sponsibility  for  its  f  ailure,80. 

Commissioners  from  South 
Carolina,  December,  1860, 
146. 

Commissioners  from  the  Con 
federate  States, 1861, 146, 147. 

The  outlook  for  the  era  of, 
217,  218. 

Obstacles  to,  239. 

Efforts  of  Democrats  in  favor 
of,  314. 

Resolutions  looking  toward, 
proposed  in  Congress,  315- 
317. 

Plank  in  Democratic  national 
platform,  1864,  317. 

Propositions  in  the  Confeder 
ate  Congress,  318. 

Resolutions  favoring,  pro 
posed  in  the  legislatures  of 
Virginia,  Georgia  and  North 
Carolina,  and  in  the  Confed 
erate  Congress  in  1864,  319. 

Correspondence  respecting 
negotiations  for,  between 
Jefferson  Davis  and  Z.  B. 
Vance,  1864-'65,  320,  331. 

Commissioners  from  the  Con 
federate  States,  January, 
1865,  327,  328. 

The  Blair  negotiation  for,  330- 
332. 

Negotiations  for,  denounced 
by  radicals  in  Congress,  332. 

Conference  at  Hampton 
Roads  respecting,  333. 


Peace  conference  of  1861,  effect 
of  failure  of  negotiations 
for,  335. 

Resolution  offered  by  the  au 
thor,  Feb.  6, 1865,  commend 
ing  negotiation  for,  335. 
Debate  in  the  House,  Jan.  10, 
1865,  respecting  the  negotia 
tions  for,  336. 

Author  answers  speeches  of 
Brooks  and  Stevens  respect 
ing  negotiations  for,  Jan.  10, 
1865,  336. 
Gained,  336. 

Pea  Ridge,  battle  of,  174. 

Pease,  E.  M.,  candidate  for  gov 
ernor  of  Texas,  1866,  401. 
Appointed  governor  of  Texas, 

1867,  573. 

Message  to  the  constitutional 
convention  of  Texas,  574. 

Peck,  E.  W.,  presides  at  consti 
tutional  convention,  Ala 
bama,  1867,  513. 

Pemberton,  John  C.,  surrender 
of,  195. 

Pendleton,  George  H.,  speech 
opposing  thirteenth  amend 
ment,  Jan.  12, 1865,  321. 
Discusses  the  power  to  amend 
the  constitution,  January, 
1865,  323. 

His  civil  service  reform  bill, 
676. 

Peninsular  campaign,  179. 

Penn,  D.  B.,  leads  uprising 
against  Governor  Kellogg, 
of  Louisiana,  September, 
1874,  567. 

Pennington,  William,   speaker 
of  the  House,  Thirty-sixth 
Congress,  75,  92. 
Sketch  of,  75,  92. 

Pennsylvania,  personal  liberty 

bill,  1847, 107. 
Invasion  of,  1862, 192. 
Invasion  of,  1863,  201. 

Perry,  Benjamin  F.,  appointed 
by  President  Johnson  pro 
visional  governor  of  South 
Carolina,  412. 

Course  of,    as    governor    of 
South  Carolina,  412,  413. 

Perry,  M.  S.,  as  governor  of 
Florida,  recommends  steps 
toward  secession,  115. 

Personal  liberty  bills,  106-109. 

Petersburg,  attack  in  front  of, 
213. 

Pettus,  John  J.,  governor  of 
Mississippi,  1861,  294. 

Phelps,  John  S.,  chairman  ways 
and  means  committee,  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  73. 
Championed  the  Union  senti 
ment  of  Missouri,  73. 
Member  committee  of  thirty- 
three,  77. 

Phelps,  William  Walter,  mem 
ber  of  committee  to  investi 
gate  election  of  1874  in 
Louisiana,  569. 

Phillips,  Wendell,  demands  the 
thirteenth  amendment,  311. 

Pickens,  Francis  W.,  governor 
of  South  Carolina,  1861,  294. 

Pickering,  John,  impeachment 
of,  584. 

Pierce,  Franklin,  proposed 
member  of  peace  commis 
sion,  1861,  315. 

Policy  respecting  the  Declara 
tion  of  Paris,  266,  267. 

Pierce,  Henry  L.,  opinion  of 
the  action  of  the  electoral 
commission,  660. 


7i8 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Pierpont,  Francis  H.,  recog 
nized  governor  of  Virginia, 
349. 

His  government,  433.  424. 
Pillow,  Gideon  J.,  at  Fort  Don- 

elson,  175. 

Pinchback,   P.   B.  S.,  assumes 
the   office   of  governor   of 
Louisiana,  562. 
Platform,  Democratic  party,  of 

1884,  characterized,  680. 
Republican,  680. 
Poland,  Luke  P.,  report  respect 
ing  affairs  in  Arkansas,  541. 
Polk,  James  K.,  his  campaign 

of  1844,  47. 
His  cabinet,  47. 

Polk,  Trusten,  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  71. 
Governor  of  Missouri,  71. 
His  amiability,  89. 
Poor-convict    oath,    the    only 
charitable    statutory    oath 
since  the  war,  612. 
Pope,  John,  takes  New  Madrid 

and  Island  No.  10, 176. 
At  Corinth,  178. 
Placed  in   command  of   the 

army  of  Virginia,  187. 
In  command  of  third  military 

district,  508. 
Popular  sovereignty,  doctrine 

of,  119. 
Population,   statistics   of,    687, 


Relation    to    representation, 

695,  696. 
Porter,  David,  his  cruise  in  the 


Porter,  David  D.,  31. 
At  New  Orleans,  193. 
At  Vicksburg,  195. 
At  Arkansas  Post,  195. 
Red  River  expedition,  210. 
His  operations  against  Fort 

Fisher,  211,  212. 
Porter,  Fitz  John,  at  Malvern 

Hill,  187. 

Port  Hudson,  capture  of,  196. 
Port  Royal,  expedition  against, 

1861, 175. 

Posse  comitatus  clause,  631. 
Potter,  Clarkson  N.,  member  of 
committee    to    investigate 
election    of   1874  in  Louis 
iana,  569* 
Potter,  John   F.,   member   of 

Congress,  76. 

Present  at  the  Grow-Keitt  al 
tercation,  76. 

Potter,    Orlando   B.,   plan   for 
national    paper    currency, 

Powell,    Lazarus    W.,    senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Opposed  military  interference 

with  elections,  88. 
Vote  in  committee  of  thirteen 
on  Jefferson  Davis'  proposi 
tion,  115. 
Efforts  against  use  of  army  at 

the  polls,  629. 
Prentiss,  Benjamin  M.,  at  Shi- 

loh,  177. 

Press,  freedom  of,  violated,  229. 
Price,  Sterling,  Confederate  ser 
vice  in  Missouri,  1861, 163. 
Confederate  service  in   Mis 
souri,  1862, 174. 
Proceedings  in  rem,  part  of  the 

vindictive  policy,  249. 
Proclamation  of  emancipation, 

123. 

Of  the  President,  Aug.  16, 
1861,  declaring  state  of  in 
surrection,  242. 


Proclamation  of  amnesty,  Presi 
dent  Lincoln's,  337,  338. 
Of  amnesty,  President  John 
son's,  346. 

Progress,  material,  in  three  dec 


Of  the  nation,  125. 

Proscriptions,  object  of,  on  the 

part    of     the     Republican 

Hy,  250. 
test  oaths.) 
ourteenth    amendment 
obsolete,  601. 

Protestant    Episcopal   Church, 
military  interference  with, 
in  Alabama,  408. 
Provisional  governments,  leg 
islation  for,  339. 
Operation  of,  380. 
Course  of,  in  Tennessee,  381- 

383. 

North  Carolina,  384-388. 
Mississippi,  389-392. 
Georgia,  397-398. 
Texas,  399-401. 
Alabama,  403^06. 
South  Carolina,  412,  413. 
Florida,  419,  420. 
Louisiana,  425-428. 
Pryor,  Roger  A.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Sketched,  72,  74,  94. 
Speech  at  Charleston  urging 

attack  on  Sumter,  149. 
Pugh,    George     E.,     personal 

sketch,  59. 

Senator     Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  72. 

Pugh,  James  L.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
Member     Confederate     Con 
gress,  97. 
Pulaski,    Fort,    bombardment 

and  surrender  of,  174. 
Quarles,    James    M.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  95. 
Confederate  general,  95. 
Quartermaster's     department, 
services  of,  during  the  war, 
214-216. 

Quincy,  Josiah,  opposes  admis 
sion  of  Louisiana,  44. 
Quitman,  John  A.,  attempts  to 
cut  off  debate  on  the  Le- 
compton  constitution,  1857, 
27,  57. 

Radford,  Wm.,  votes  for  thir 
teenth  amendment,  326. 
Railways,  employment  of,  dur 
ing  the  war,  215. 
Raleigh,  N.  C.,  capture  of,  212. 
Randall,  S.   J.,   opposes  force 

bill,  257. 
Course  as  speaker  during  the 

electoral  count,  1877,  664. 
Randolph,  John,  his  part  in  im 
peachment  of  Samuel  Chase, 
584. 
Attitude  respecting  slavery, 

Opposes  war  of  1812,  53. 
Ransom,*  Matt  W.,  member  of 
committee  on  the  electoral 
count,  637. 
Rebellion,  the  Ohio,  1857,  81. 
Reagan  John  H.,  estimate  of 

duration  of  secession,  65. 
At  battle  of  Seven  Pines,  92. 
Sketch  of,  98. 

Recognition    of    Confederacy, 
proclaimed  by  Great  Brit 
ain,  258. 
Secretary   Black's   effort    to 

prevent,  258,  259. 
Secretary  Seward's  effort  to 
prevent,  259,  260. 


Reconstruction,  not  of  states 
but  of  the  Union,  30. 

Championship  of  slavery  a 
principal  obstacle  to,  36. 

President  Lincoln's  mode  of, 
338. 

Proposed  legislation  for,  339, 
340. 

House  bill  for,  passed,  340. 

Comparison  between  House 
bill  for,  and  President  Lin 
coln's  policy,  340,  341. 

President  Lincoln's  signature 
withheld  from  House  bill 
for,  341. 

Measure  for,  reported  by 
James  M.  Ashley,  Dec.  10, 
1864,  342. 

Speech  of  President  Lincoln, 
April  11,  1865,  respecting, 
342,344. 

Republican  party  dissatisfied 
with  President  Johnson's 
measures  of,  349. 

Party  positions  on,  357. 

Principles  of,  according  to 
Thaddeus  Stevens,  367. 

Acts  of  March  2  and  March 
23, 1867,  376. 

Acts  of  March,  1867,  author's 
views  upon  question  of  con 
stitutionality  of,  378,  379. 

Provisions  of,  480-483,  497. 

Question  of  construction  of» 
in  Louisiana,  546. 

Of  March  21,  1867,  operation 
of  section  5  of,  in  Alabama, 
514. 

In  Virginia,  484-493. 

In  North  Carolina,  495-500, 507. 

In  South  Carolina,  5UO-506, 507. 

In  Georgia,  509-512. 

In  Alabama,  512-516. 

In  Florida,  517-524. 

In  Mississippi,  525-534. 

In  Arkansas,  534-542. 

In  Louisiana,  544-570. 

In  Texas,  572-577. 
Rector,  Henry  M.,  1861,  294. 
Red  Cross  Flag  of  Geneva,  614. 
Red  River  expedition,  210. 
Reed,   Harrison,   elected   gov 
ernor  of  Florida,  1868,  517. 

Impeachment  of,  518. 

Second  attempt  to  remove, 
by  impeachment,  521. 

Third  attempt  to  remove,  by 

impeachment,  522. 
Registration  of  voters  under  the 
reconstruction    acts,    Vir 
ginia,  487,  488. 

North  Carolina,  496,  497. 

South  Carolina,  502. 

Georgia,  509. 

Alabama,  513. 

Florida,  517. 

Mississippi,  526. 

Arkansas,  534. 

Texas,  574. 

Louisiana,  544-546. 

General  Sheridan's  dispatch 
to  General  Grant  respecting 
same,  544. 

Period  of  same  ordered  ex 
tended,  545. 

Classes  excluded  from,  546. 

Texas,  574. 
Relay  House,  occupation  of,  by 

General  Butler,  153. 
Religious  teachers,  persecution 

of,  in  Missouri,  613,  614. 
Representation,  basis  of,  695. 

Our   system    of,   vindicated. 


In  Congress,  causes  of  delay 
in  admitting  the  South  to,  30. 


INDEX. 


719 


Republican  movement  in  Eu 
rope,  1848,  effect  of,  upon 
tendency  toward  foreign  in 
tervention,  1861,260. 
Republican  party,  methods  of 
constitutional  construction, 
35,  36. 

Rise  of,  50. 

Attitude  of,  toward  Critten- 
den  compromise,  80. 

Its  theory  of  status  of  seced 
ing  states,  123. 

The  destruction  of  slavery 
the  main  object  of,  during 
the  war,  221,  222. 

Its  theory  of  status  of  the 
Southern  States,  246. 

Object  of,  in  proscriptions, 
250. 

Its  theory  of  constitutional 
construction,  356,  357. 

In  Virginia,  division  in,  1867, 
488. 

In  Mississippi,  platform  and 
ticket  of,  1869, 529. 

In  Louisiana,  quarrels  in, 
554,  558. 

Cause  of  quarrel  of,  with 
President  Johnson,  581. 

Its  course  in  the  South,  624. 

Stand  of,  1876,  629. 

Attitude  of,  Dec.,  1876,  636. 

Convention  at  Chicago,  1880, 
673. 

Platform  and  nominations, 
1880,  673,  674. 

Dissensions  in,  during  the  ad 
ministration  of  President 
Garfield,  675. 

Indictment  of,  681. 
Resolution,  joint,  of  Congress, 
Jan.   17,    1863,    authorizing 
the  issue  of  legal  tenders  to 
pay  the  army,  135. 

In  Congress  proposed  by  the 
author  with  purpose  of 
peace,  July  29,  1861,314,315. 

Proposed  by  Garrett  Davis 
with  the  purpose  of  peace, 
Dec.  3, 1862,  315. 

Favoring  peace,  proposed  by 
C.  B.  Calvert  of  Maryland, 
Aug.  5,  1861,  315. 

In  the  interest  of  peace,  pro 
posed  by  C.  H.  Vallandig- 
ham,  315. 

For  appointment  of  peace 
commissioners  and  for  an 
armistice,  proposed  by 
Henry  May,  1861,  315. 

Proposed  by  Senator  Sauls- 
bury,  Dec.  4,  1861,  favoring 
peace,  315. 

Concurrent,  of  Dec.  13,  1865, 
with  respect  to  representa 
tion  of  the  seceded  states, 
349,  350. 

Of  July  24,  1866,  restoring 
Tennessee  to  her  relations 
to  the  Union,  382. 

Of  Senate,  July  3, 1867,  calling 
for  information  respecting 
execution  of  reconstruction 
acts,  483. 

President's  answer  to,  483,  484. 

Of  United  States  Senate,  Jan. 
14,  1873,  inquiring  into  af 
fairs  in  Louisiana,  564. 

Of  March  7, 1867,  directing  for 
mal  inquiry  into  grounds 
for  impeachment  of  Presi 
dent  Johnson,  581. 

Reports  under,  581,  582. 

Declarative  of  our  republican 
system  proposed  by  the  au 
thor,  600. 


Resolution ,  declaring  the  Demo 
cratic    candidates    elected, 
March  3, 1877,  668. 
Restoration   of    the  states  to 
complete  federal  relations, 
importance  of,  570-572. 
Of  seceded  states  to  full  fed 
eral  relations,Tennessee,382. 
Virginia,  493. 
North  Carolina,  507. 
South  Carolina,  507. 
Georgia,  510. 
Alabama,  514. 
Florida,  517. 
Mississippi,  531. 
Arkansas,  535. 
Louisiana,  550. 
Texas,  577. 
Resumption  act,  January,  1875, 

671. 

Of    specie    payment   accom 
plished  Jan.  1, 1879,  672. 
Of   constitutional  state  gov 
ernment  in  the  South  dur 
ing  the  Hayes  administra 
tion,  672. 
Returning  board  of  Louisiana, 

660. 

Revels,  Hiram  R.,  elected  sena 
tor  from  Mississippi,  1870, 530. 
Revolutionary  war,  efforts  to 
defray  expenses  of,  128,  129. 
Revenue,  the  surplus,  141. 
Reynolds,  Dean,  beaten  by  Ku- 

Klux,  471. 
Reynolds,  J.  J.,  in  command  of 

fifth  military  district,  549. 
Course  of,  as  commander  of 

fifth  military  district,  576. 

Senator  from  Texas,  1871,  577. 

Rice,   Alexander   H.,   member 

Thirty -sixth  Congress,  90. 
Governor  of  Massachusetts,90. 
Rice,  Americus  V.,  debates  in 
the  House  the  electoral  com 
mission    Louisiana    action, 
657. 

Rice,  Henry  M.,  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  72,  90. 
Votes  in  committee  of  thir 
teen    on   Jefferson    Davis' 
proposition,  115. 
Rice,  John  H.,  urges  prosecu 
tion  of  the  war,  1865,  314. 
Richardson,  William  A.,  dele 
gate  to  Charleston  conven 
tion,  60. 

Member    Thirty-sixth     Con 
gress,  63. 

At  Bull  Run,  157, 158. 
Richmond,  evacuation  of,  213. 
Times,  censured  by  General 

Schofield,  485. 
Riddle,  Albert  G.,  at  Bull  Run, 

157, 158. 
Account  of  the  flight  from 

Bull  Run,  158. 

Right  of  search,  not  an  Ameri 
can  doctrine,  283. 
England  an  advocate  of,  283. 
American  position  as  to  doc 
trine  of,  stated,  289,  290. 
Rights  of  the  negro,  their  se 
curity,  679. 

Risley,   Miss   Olive,   at   dinner 
given  by  Secretary  Seward 
after  Trent  affair,  291. 
Roanoke  Island  occupied,  Feb 
ruary,  1862, 166. 

Robertson,  Thomas  J.,  elected 
senator  from  South  Caro 
lina,  504. 
Robinson,  James  F.,  governor 
of  Kentucky,  issues  procla 
mation  to  repel  E.  Kirby 
Smith's  raid,  190. 


Rogers,  Andrew  J.,  offers  peace 
resolution  in  the  House, 
1864,  317. 

Commanding     gun-boats    at 
Fort  Pulaski,  1T3. 

Rollins,  James  Sidney,  votes  for 
thirteenth  amendment,  326. 

Roman,  Andre  B.,  peace  com 
missioner  of  the  Confed 
eracy,  1861,  146. 

Rosecrans,  William  S.,  at  luka 

and  Stone  River,  191. 
Holds  Chattanooga,  201. 

Rowan,  Stephen  C.,  command 
ing  Pawnee  in  expedition 
against  Hatteras,  1861, 164. 
Commanding  naval  forces  in 
operation  against  Newbern, 
1862, 167. 

Ruffin,  Thomas,  member  Thir- 

ty-^ixth  Congress,  74. 
Died  of  wounds,  93. 

Runnymede,  235. 

Rusk,  Thomas  J.,  senator  from 
Texas,  1845,  302. 

Russell,   Earl,  course  in  nego 
tiations    with    the    United 
States,  respecting  the  Paris 
declaration,  270,  271. 
Respecting  our  blockade,  1861, 

In    correspondence    on    the 

Trent  affair,  281,  286. 
Urged  by  Li  verpool  merchants 

to  break  the  blockade,  282. 
Dispatch  on  Trent  affair,  286, 

287. 

Rust,  Albert,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress  from  Arkan 
sas,  distrustful  of  secession 
as  a  remedy,  74. 
Member  committee  of  thirty - 

three,  77. 

Confederate  general,  96. 
Sketch  of,  96. 

Sanders,  George  N.,  his  part  in 
the  Niagara  peace  negotia 
tions,  317. 
Sketch  of,  317. 

San  Jacinto,  the  battle  of,  302. 
U.  S.  Steamship,  Capt.  Charles 
Wilkes  in  command  of,  276. 
Santa  Anna,  defeated  by  Hous 
ton  at  San  Jacinto,  302. 
Saulsbury,     Willard,      senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  71. 
Sawyer,  Frederick  A.,  elected 
senator  from   South  Caro 
lina,  504. 
Schenck,  Robert  C.,  urges  pros 
ecution  of  the  war,  1865, 314. 
Extract  from  speech  of,  314. 
Schofield,  John  M.,  command 
ing  army  of  the  Ohio,  206 
Services  in   Tennessee,   1864, 

209. 
Appointed  secretary  of   war, 

296. 

Military  commander  first  re 
construction  district,  484. 
Schurz,   Carl,    at    Chancellors- 

ville,  198. 
Member  of  the  Hayes  cabinet, 

670. 

Schofield,  Glenni  W  member 
of  House  committee,  1872, 
respecting  difficulties  in 
Louisiana,  557. 

Scott,  Charles  L.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  99. 
Scott,  Richard  K.,  elected  gov 
ernor    of    South   Carolina, 
1868,  503. 

Re-elected,  1870,  505. 
Search,  right  of,  the   doctrine 
advocated  by  England,  283. 


720 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Search,  right  of,  denied  by  the 

United  States,  286, 390. 
Sebastian,  William  KM  senator 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  71. 

Expelled  from  Senate,  71. 

Expulsion  revoked,  71. 
Secession,  denounced    by    the 
author  in  1861,  31-34. 

Theory  of,  34. 

Design  of  the  movement,  51. 

Distinguished  from  nullifica 
tion,  53. 

Doctrine  of,  repudiated  by 
Calhoun,  53, 101. 

Doctrine  of,  not  in  the  Ken 
tucky  resolutions  of  1798,102. 

Southern  views  in  1861,  as  to 
seriousness  and  permanen 
cy  of,  65. 

Doctrine  of,  not  in  the  Vir 
ginia  resolutions  of  1798, 103. 

The  South  Carolina  declara 
tion  of  causes  of,  discussed, 
109. 

Protests  in  the  Southern 
States  against,  121. 

Question  of  validity  of,  123. 

Theories  of  effect  or,  upon  sta 
tus  of  states,  123. 

Is  it  war  or  insurrection,  145, 
364. 

Sympathy  with,  in  Kentucky, 
Maryland,  and  Missouri,  153. 

In  the  Swiss  republic,  1847, 
260,261. 

From  the  Confederacy,  right 
of,  mooted  in  the  Southern 
States,  313. 

From  the  Confederacy,  posi 
tion  of  Jefferson  Davis  re 
specting  right  of,  319. 

Question  of  actuality  of,  de 
bated,  357-361. 

Author's  views  on  question  of 
validity  of  acts  of,  361-364. 

Invalidity  of,  recognized  by 
Congress  and  the  supreme 
court,  361. 

Ordinances  of,  adopted  and 
annulled.  (See  ordinances 
of  secession.) 

Ordinances  of,  state  conven 
tions  adopting.  (See  con 
ventions.) 

ition  to,  in  the  South, 


Secret  societies,  453. 

In  foreign  countries,  476-478. 
Sectional   hostility,   causes  of, 

1856,  61. 
Sectionalism,  consequences  of, 

Sectional  strife,  stand  of  Re 
publican  party  on  memories 
of,  1876,  629. 

Seddon,  James  A.,  Confederate 
secretary  of  war,  his  rejoin 
der  to  Governor  Brown,  305. 

Sedition  act  of  1798, 105. 

Sedgwick,  Charles  B.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  91. 
Honored  his  profession,  91. 

Sedgwick,  John,  at  Chancellors- 
ville,  197. 

Sedgwick,  Theodore,  held  that 
slavery  was  abolished  by  the 
Massachusetts  constitution 
of  1780,  38. 

Seizure,  right  of,  upon  the  high 
seas,  265-272. 

Senate  of  worthies,  26. 

Seelye,   Julius    H.,  speech    in 
House  on  counting  Florida 
electoral  vote,  1877,  657. 
Opinion  of  the  action  of  elec 
toral  commission,  660, 


Senter,  DeWitt  C.,  governor  of 
Tennessee,  298. 

Sequestration  of  property  enac 
ted  by  the  Confederate  Con 
gress,  246. 

Seven  Pines,  battle  of,  184. 

Seymour,  Horatio,  candidate  of 
the   Democratic   party  for 
the  presidency,  1868,  619. 
Union  sentiments  of,  during- 
the  war,  620. 

Seward,  Mrs.  Frederick  W.,  at 
dinner  given  by  Secretary 
Seward  after  Trent  affair, 
291. 

Seward,  William  H.,  declares 
the  "irrepressible  conflict," 

Senator  Thirty-sixth  Con 
gress,  72. 

Vote  in  committee  of  thir 
teen  on  Jefferson  Davis' 
proposition,  115. 

Secretary  of  state,  147. 

Correspondence  with  peace 
commissioners  of  the  Con 
federacy,  147, 148. 

His  administration  of  state 
department  criticised,  227. 

Circular  of  March  9,  1861, 
respecting  recognition  of 
the  Southern  States  as  a 
belligerent  power,  259. 

Instructions  of  March  26, 
1861,  respecting  foreign  in 
terference,  262. 

Letter,  April  6,  1861,  to  Mr. 
Corwin,  minister  to  Mexico, 
respecting  foreign  inter 
ference,  262,  263. 

Circular  of  April  24, 1861,  re 
specting  the  Declaration  of 
Paris,  279. 

Letter  to  Minister  Adams, 
Sept.  7, 1861,  respecting  the 
Declaration  of  Paris,  271, 
272. 

Letter  to  Minister  Adams, 
July  21,  1861,  respecting  the 
blockade,  273. 

Speech  at  Auburn,  Oct.  31, 
1868,274. 

Tribute  to,  274. 

Reply  to  Lord  Lyons,  on  de 
tention  of  British  subjects 
in  Fort  Lafayette,  282. 

Could  Wilkes'  act  in  the  Trent 
affair  be  disavowed  by  ?  283. 

Author's  confidence  in,  285. 

Vindicated  the  freedom  of 
the  seas,  286. 

Reply  to  British  dispatch  on 
Trent  affair,  287, 289. 

Agrees  to  surrender  the  con 
federate  commissioners,  289. 

House  occupied  by,  during 
time  of  Trent  affair,  290. 

Table-talk  at  dinner  given  by, 
after  Trent  affair,  291, 292. 

Points  out  Captain  Wilkes' 
mistake  in  the  Trent  affair, 
281,  288,  289. 

His  policy  and  course  in  the 
affair  of  the  Trent,  281,  284, 
293. 

The  victory  won  by  him  in 
the  Trent  affair,  292,  293. 

Merits  of  his  course  in  Trent 
affair  considered  by  Mr. 
Sumner,  293. 

Thought  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  abolishing 
slavery  absolutely  neces 
sary,  310. 

At  the  Hampton  Roads  con 
ference,  333. 


Seward,  William  H.,  letter  to 
Minister  Adams,  Feb.  9, 1865, 
respecting    the     Hampton 
Roads  conference,  335. 
Held  states  indestructible,  352. 
Declares    allegiance    due   to 
states    as  well  as    to    the 
Union,  353. 

Correspondence  with  Gov. 
Perry  respecting  ratifica 
tion  of  thirteenth  amend 
ment,  414. 

Attempted  murder  of,  578. 
Shaftesbury,   Lord,  action    on 

Trent  affair,  283. 
Sharkey,  William  L.,  31. 
Provisional  governor  of  Mis 
sissippi,  389. 

Biographical  sketch  of  ,389,390. 
Sharpsburg,  battle  of,  188. 
Shaw,  Lemuel,  member  of  the 
Massachusetts  constitution 
al  convention  of  1850,  586. 
Shellabarger,  Samuel,  political 

campaign,  1862, 190. 
Counsel  for  Mr.  Hayes  before 

electoral  commission,  655. 
Shepley,  George  F.,  appointed 
governor  of  Louisiana,  1862, 
425. 

Sheridan,  Philip  H.,  31. 
Assumes    command    of    the 
fifth  military  district  under 
the  reconstruction  acts,  543. 
Dissents  from  attorney-gen 
eral's  interpretation  of  re 
construction  acts,  546. 
Statement  of,  respecting  his 
course    as    military    com 
mander  of  the  fifth  district, 
573. 

Sherman,  John,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
Influence  upon  our  financial 

policies,  75. 
His  manner,  356. 
Opposes  electoral  commission 

bill  in  the  Senate,  649. 
Member  of  the  Hayes  cabinet, 

669. 

Sherman,  Thomas  WM  service 
in  expedition  against  Port 
Royal,  1861, 165. 

Sherman,  Roger,  statue  of,  26. 
Sherman,  William  T.,  31. 
At  Vicksburg,  195. 
At  Arkansas  Post,  195. 
At  Shiloh,  177. 
In  command  army  of  the  Ten- 


Services   in   Mississippi,  1864, 

203. 

Georgia  campaign,  206. 
Capture  of  Atlanta,  207. 
March  to  the  sea,  208,  209. 
March  through  the  Carolinas, 

212. 
Fights  Gen.  J.  E.  Johnston  at 

Bentonville,  212. 
Maxim  on  which  he  acted,  207. 
Effect  of  his  successes,  310. 
Clemency  of,  in  his  agreement 

with  Johnston,  597. 
Shields,  James,  services  in  Vir 
ginia,  184. 

Shiloh,  battle  of,  177. 
Sidney,  Algernon,  a  prototype 

of  Jefferson,  680. 
Influence    of    his    teachings 

upon  our  institutions,  652. 
Sickles,     Daniel    E.,     member 

Thirty -sixth  Congress,  76. 
Organizer  of    the    Excelsior 

brigade,  91. 
His  military  and  diplomatic 

services,  91. 


INDEX. 


721 


Sickles,    Daniel   E.,    order  re 

specting  freedmen,  416. 
Assumes  command  of  second 

military  district,  March  21, 

1867,  494. 
Advice   to  the  freedmen   in 

South  Carolina,  501. 
Address   to   board   of  trade, 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  503. 
Sigel,  Franz,  service  at  Carth 


age,  Mo.,  163. 
t  P 


At  Pea  Ridge,  174. 
Silver,  remonetization  of,  670- 

672. 

Coinage  of,  670-672. 
Standard  for  same,  670,  671. 
Trade  dollar,  671. 
Silver    dollar,   restoring     act, 

Feb.  28,  1878,  671,  672. 
Coinage  of,  thereunder,  672. 
Simmes,  William  E.,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Confederate  senator,  72. 
Singleton,    Otho   R.,     member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  97. 
Member    Confederate     Con 

gress,  97. 
Sisters   of   charity,   persecu 

tion  of,  in  Missouri,  614. 
Sixth  Massachusetts  regiment, 

mobbed  in  Baltimore,  April 

19,  1861,  152. 
Slavery,    early    irreconcilable 

with  northern  sentiment,  36. 
Its   championship   the   chief 

obstacle  to  reconstruction, 

36. 

Origin  and  spread  of,  37. 
Abolition  in  other  countries, 

37. 

Colonial,  37-39. 
Strengthened  by  the  cotton- 

gin,  38. 
Spread  in  the  South  of  senti 

ment  favoring,  41. 
Territorial  question  concern 

ing,  42. 
Question  of,  as  affecting  ac 

quisition  of  Louisiana, 

Florida,  and  Texas,  43-45. 
Agitation  against,  attending 

the  admission  of   Missouri 

and  annexation  of  Texas, 

45. 
Support  of  its  claims  to  rec 

ognition  by  the  Constitu 

tion,  the    political    touch 

stone  in  the  South,  45. 
Success  of  friends  of  exten 

sion  in  1844,  47. 
Southern  views  of  its  consti 

tutionality,  49. 
Northern  and  southern  views 

of,  52. 

Calhoun's  views  of,  54. 
The    extreme  southern  doc 

trine,  55. 

Question  of  extension  of,  55. 
Question  of,  in  the  Charleston 

convention,  59. 
Its   ultimate    extension    be 

lieved  in  by  the  supporters 

of  the  Crittenden  compro 

mise,  219. 
Death  of,  recognized  by  R.  E. 

Lee    and   Jefferson   Davis, 

313. 
Constitutional  right  to  abol 

ish,  322. 

Author's  view  of,  325. 
Status  of,  January,  1865,  326. 
Abolition    of,    declared    by 

Tennessee,  382. 
North  Carolina,  385. 
Mississippi,  392. 


Slavery,  abolition  of,  declared 
by  Georgia,  398. 

Texas,  401. 

Alabama,  404. 

South  Carolina,  412. 

Florida,  420. 

Louisiana,  428. 

Arkansas,  437. 
Slaves,   Confederate   Congress 

resolves  to  arm,  213. 
Slidell,   John,   senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  70. 

Sketch  of,  70,  88. 

Diplomatic  agent  of  the  Con 
federacy,  275. 

His  instructions,  275. 

Embarks  upon  the   steamer 
Trent,  267. 

Captured  by  Captain  Wilkes, 

Protests  against  arrest,  279. 
Letter  acknowledging  cour 
tesy  of  Capt.  Wilkes,  281. 
Imprisoned  in  Fort  Warren, 

281. 
Questions  involved  in  capture 

of,  286-290. 
Released,  292. 
Slocum,    Henry    W.,    on    the 

march  to  the  sea,  208. 
Social  equality,  impracticabil 
ity  of,  54. 
Bill  to  insure,  in  Louisiana, 

553. 

Southern  Confederacy,  forma 
tion  of,  117. 
Constitution,  117, 118. 
South,  the,  its  grievance,  63. 
Withdrawal  of  states  of,  64. 
Attitude  of  the  people  to  ward 

peace  in,  1861, 223. 
The  radical  proscription   of 
the  people  of,  violative  of 
the  Constitution,  248,  249. 
Effect  of  delay  of  full  amnes 
ty  upon,  596. 
Resumption  of  constitutional 

state  government  in,  672. 
Entire  electoral  vote  of,  cast 
for  Hancock  and  English, 
675. 
Character  of  its  people  before 

and  since  the  war,  678. 
Its  complete  restoration,  679. 
Smith   Charles,  credentials    as 
senator  from  Louisiana  re 
ported,  Feb.  18, 1865, 342. 
Smith,  E.  Kirby,  Confederate 

service  in  Kentucky,  190. 
Smith,  Gerrit,  demands  the  thir 
teenth  amendment,  311. 
Smith,  Green  Clay,  urges  prose 
cution  of  war,  1865,  814. 
Proposes  resolutions  declar 
ing  prosecution  of  the  war  a 
duty,  316. 

Smith,  H.  Boardman,  member 
House  committee,  1872,  on 
difficulties  in  Louisiana,  557. 
Smith,  J.Brenton,testimony  re 
specting  Governor  Hold  en's 
conduct,  459,  460. 
Smith,  Joseph  B.,  commanding 

the  frigate  Congress,  170. 
Smith,  Samuel  A.,  member  of 

Congress,  1857, 27. 
Smith,  William,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Personal  sketch  of,  73,  92,  93. 
Smith,  Wm.   H.,  governor  of 

Alabama,  515. 
Smith,    Wm.   N.    H.,   member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  93. 
Chief -justice  North  Carolina, 


South  Carolina,  leads  secession 

movement  in  1860,  108-110. 
Ordinance  and  declaration  of 

causes  of  secession,  108. 
Debate  in  secession  conven 

tion,  110. 
Election     of     delegates     to 

Southern  Congress,  110. 
Treaty  commission,  1860,  110, 

146. 
Operations  on  coast  of,  No 

vember,  1861,  165. 
Military  operations  in,  in  1862, 

173. 

Sherman's  march  through  ,212. 
Colored  population  of,  409. 
Her  sufferings  from  the  war, 

411. 
Provisional   government   of, 

412. 
Ordinance   of    secession   an 

nulled,  412. 
Intimidation  in,  at  elections, 

464. 

Ku-Klux  outrages  in,  466. 
Hamburgh  massacre,  467. 
Part  of  second  military  dis 

trict  under  the  reconstruc 

tion  acts,  494. 
Negro  population  of,  501. 
Attitude    of    the    freedmen, 

1867,  501. 

Registration  of  voters,  1867, 

502. 
Constitutional  convention  un 

der  reconstruction  acts,  502. 
Provisions  of  constitution  of, 

1868,  503. 

Constitution  of,  ratified,  503. 
Election  in,  for  state  officers 

and  legislature,  1868,  503. 
Legislation  in,  1868-1871,  504, 

505. 

Misgovernment  in,  504-506. 
Indebtedness  of,  506. 
Restoration  of,  to  full  federal 

relations,  507. 
Presidential  returns  from,  in 

the  electoral  count  of  1877, 

637. 
Electoral  vote  counted,  1877, 

for  the  Republican  candi 

date,  664. 

Sovereignty,  popular,  49. 
State,  stand  respecting  taken 

by   Governors  Brown    and 

Vance,  1864,  305. 
Author's  speech  in  Congress, 

3865,  respecting,  322. 
Calhoun's  doctrine  of,  322. 
Spanish  -  American     republics, 

Mr.  Seward's  policy  respect 

ing,  263. 
Sparks,  William  A.  J.,  in  con 

ference    committee   insists 

upon   repeal   of  power   to 

use  army  at  the  polls,  631. 
Spaulding,   Elbridge  G.,  mem 

ber  Thi 


91. 


irty-sixth  Congress, 


Connection  with  our  banking 

system,  91. 
Specie  payments,  question  of, 

in  politics,  629. 
Act  for  resumption  of,  671. 
Resumption  of,  672. 
Speed,    James,    attorney-gen 

eral,  230. 
Counsel  in  the  Milligan  case, 

230. 
Counsel  in  ez-parte  Garland, 

256. 
Speer,  R.  Milton,member  House 

committee,  1872,  on  difficul 

ties  in  Louisiana,  557. 


722 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Spinner,   Francis   E.,   member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  91. 

His  integrity  and  his  signa 
ture,  91. 

Sprague,  John  T.,  in  command 
sub-district  of  Florida,  517. 
Springer,  William  M.,  member 
of  committee  on  the  electo 
ral  count,  637. 

Opposes  " lot"  plan,  641. 

Remarks  in  committee,  643. 
Squatter  sovereignty,  55. 
"  Squirrel "  campaign,  190. 
St.  Philip,  Fort,  capture  of,  193. 
Stall  worth,  James  A.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  97. 

Took  no  part  in  the  war,  96. 
Stanbery,  Henry,   counsel 
against  Milligan  in  the  su 
preme  court,  230. 

Counsel  in  ex-parte  Garland, 
256. 

Opinion  construing  the  recon 
struction  acts,  378. 

Counsel  for  President  John 
son  in  the  impeachment 
trial,  587. 

Sketch  of,  587,  588. 

Speech  of,   in  impeachment 

trial,  589,  590. 
Stanbery,   William,  his    affair 

with  Houston,  301. 
Standard  silver  dollar,  671. 
Stanton,    Benjamin,     member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
Stanton,  Edwin  M., secretary  of 
war,  159. 

Seeks  removal  of  McClellan, 
1861, 159. 

Characterized,  200. 

Order  against  disloyal  prac 
tices,  223,  224. 

Requested  by  President  John 
son  to  resign,  582. 

Declines,  582. 

Suspended,  582. 

Dismissed,  582. 
Star  of  the  West,  sent  to  supply 

Fort  Sumter,  146. 
States,  indestructibility  of,  30. 
States  of  the  South,  temporary 
organization  of,  Tennessee, 
381-383. 

North  Carolina,  383-388. 

Mississippi,  389-395. 

Georgia,  395-398. 

Texas,  399402. 

Alabama,  402409. 

South  Carolina,  409-416. 

Florida,  416421. 

Virginia,  421424. 

Louisiana,  425-431. 

Arkansas,  435439. 
States  rights,  the  Calhoun  doc 
trine  of,  53. 

A  doctrine  of  Abolitionists,  63. 

Doctrine  of  the,  Kentucky 
resolutions  of  1798,  respect 
ing,  103. 

Position  of  Massachusetts  and 
Connecticut,  106. 

Relation  of  treaty  of  1873  to 
ultra  theory  of,  262. 

In  the  Confederacy,  305. 

Assertion    of,     in    Southern 
States  against  Confederate 
government,  312. 
States,  the  seceded,  theories  of 
their  status,  123. 

Conditions  of  rehabilitation 
of,  proposed  by  President 
Lincoln,  338. 

Union  of,  recognized  by  acts 
of  Congress,  notwithstand 
ing  secession,  360,  361. 


States,  the  seceded,  remarks  of 

President  Lincoln  respect 

ing  status  of,  344. 
Debate  upon  the  question  of 

their  status  under  the  Con 

stitution,  356,  357. 
Author's  view  of  their  status, 

361-364. 
Thaddeus  Stevens'  theory  of 

status  of,  366-374. 
Statuary  hall  in  the  capitol,  26. 
Stay   law   in    North   Carolina, 

course    of    military    com 

mander  respecting,  495. 
In  South  Carolina,  503. 
Stearns,    M.   L.,   governor    of 

Florida,  524. 
Steele,  John  B.,  votes  for  thir 

teenth  amendment,  326. 
Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  oppo 

sition  to  secession  in  Geor 

gia  legislature  and  conven 

tion,  111,  112. 
Sketch  of,  113,  114. 
Chosen  Vice-President  of  the 

Confederacy,  118. 
Confederate  commissioner  at 

the  Hampton  Roads  confer 

ence,  333. 
Stevens,  Isaac  I.,  delegate  in  the 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  99. 
Sketch  of,  99. 
Service  against  Port  Royal, 

1861,  165. 
Stevens,  J.  W.,  murder  of,  by 

Ku-Klux,  457. 
Stevens,     Thaddeus,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  75. 
The  Metternich  of   Republi 

canism,  75. 
Theory  as  to  status  of  seceded 

states,  123. 
Financial  course  as  chairman 

of  committee  of  ways  and 

means,  1861,  132. 
Moves     reconsideration      of 

Ganson  resolution  respect 

ing  military  incarcerations, 


ng 
233. 


His    indebtedness  to  Vattel, 

315. 
Participates  in  debate  of  Jan. 

10,  1865,  respecting  the  peace 

negotiations,  336. 
Attitude    toward    President 

Johnson's  measures  of  re 

construction,  349,  350. 
Sketch  of,  365. 

Policy  and  theories  of,  365-374. 
Speech  by,  367-372. 
Position  of,  with  respect  to 

admission  of  Alabama,  514. 
One  of  the  managers  in  the 

impeachment  of  President 

Johnson,  585. 
Stevenson,   John  W.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  76. 
Stewart,    James    A.,    member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  92. 
Judicial  service,  92. 
Stewart.    Joseph,    commander 

sub-district  of  Alexandria, 

486. 
Stone,  Charles  P.,  sketch    of, 

164. 
Stockton,  Robert  F.,  his  man 

ner,  356. 
Stoneman,  George,  commander 

sub-district  of  Petersburg, 

486. 
Military  commander  first  re 

construction  district,  489. 
Biographical  sketch  of,   490, 

Stone  River,  battle  of,  192. 


"Stonewall  Jackson,"  death  of 

198. 

Stoughton,  Edward  W.,  counsel 
for  Mr.  Hayes  before  elec 
toral  commission,  655. 
Stringham,  Silas  H.,  command 
ing  naval  forces  in  expedi 
tion  against  Hatteras,  1861, 
164,  166. 

Strong,  G.  P.,  counsel  for  the 
state  of  Missouri  in  the  Cum- 
mings  case,  251. 

Strong,  William,  member  elec 
toral  commission,  650. 
Stuart,  John  T.,  interview  (holi 
days  of  1864;  of  Stuart  and 
author  with  President  Lin 
coln,  with  a  view  to  nego 
tiations,  310. 

Stuart,  J.  E.  B.,  raid  across  the 
Chickahominy,  185. 

Raid  into  Pennsylvania,  192. 
Sub-districts  of  Virginia,  486. 
Suffrage,  educational  qualifica 
tion  of,  proposed  by  W.  D. 
Kelley,  342. 

The  oath  of  allegiance,  the 
condition  of,  in  states  un 
dergoing  reconstruction, 
349. 

For  the  negro,  movement 
toward,  376. 

Right  of,  refused  to  the 
freedmen  in  Tennessee, 
1866,  382. 

Proposed  constitutional  pro 
visions  in  Mississippi,  527. 

In  Louisiana,  under  constitu 
tion  of  1868,  549. 

Questions  relating  to,  an  is 
sue  in  the  campaign  of  1876. 
628. 

Defense  of  liberty  of,  629. 

Author's  speech  on  freedom 

of,  1871, 633. 
Suicide  of  states,  question  of 

possibility,  ar>l-  353. 
Sumner,  Charles,  appeal  to  Sen 
ate  to  erase  names  of  battle 
fields  of  the  civil  war  from 
the  battle-flags,  31. 

Senator  Thirty-sixth  Con 
gress,  72. 

Representative  of  the  Puri 
tan  and  progressive  ele 
ment  of  New  England,  86. 

Theory  of  status  of  the  se 
ceded  states,  123. 

On  the  maritime  policy  of  the 
United  States,  265. 

Speech  on  Trent  affair,  293. 

Proposes  to  make  the  eman 
cipation  proclamation  a 
statute,  340. 

His  opinion  of  the  improvised 
state  government  of  Vir 
ginia,  341. 

Personal  aspect  of,  356. 
Sumner,  Edwin  V.,  service  in 

Virginia,  185. 

Sumter,  Fort,  occupancy  of,  by 
Major  Anderson,  146. 

Attempt  to  furnish  supplies 
to,  146. 

Evacuation  of,  urged  by 
Southern  commissioners, 
146-148. 

Fired  on,  149. 

Evacuation  of,  149. 

Effect  on  the  country,  149. 

Policy  of    Confederate   gov 
ernment  in  attacking,  150. 
Supreme  court,  United  States, 
decision   in   Cummings   vs. 
the  State  of  Missouri,  252. 


INDEX. 


Supreme  Court,  dissenting  opin 
ion  in  Cummings  us.  the 
State  of  Missouri,  253, 254. 
Union  of  the  states  recog 
nized  by,  in  orders  of  1862 
and  1865,  361. 

Surrender  of  the  Confederate 
cause,  214, 578. 

Swayne,  Noah  H.,  dissents  from 
opinion  of  the  supreme 
court  in  the  Cummings 
case,  252. 

Swayne,     Wager,     report    of, 
upon  affairs  in  Georgia,  467. 
In  charge  of  sub-district  of 
Alabama,  1867, 512. 

Swepson,  George  W.,  testimony 
respecting  corruption  in 
North  Carolina  legislature, 


Letter  to  Governor  Reed,  of 

Florida,  May,  1869,  520. 
Switzerland,   the  secession  in, 

1847,  260,  261. 
Sykes,  George,  at  battle  of  Me- 

chanicsville,  185. 
Tailly,  John  W.    Rev.,  driven 

away  by  Ku-Klux,  471. 
Tappan,  Arthur,  effort  for  edu 
cation  of  colored  people,  40. 
Tappan,    Mason    W.,   member 
Thirty -sixth  Congress,  77. 

Member  committee  of  thirty- 
three,  77. 

Led  a  regiment  to  the  field,  90. 
Tariff,  question  of,  691. 

True  test  of  character  of,  139. 

Commission,  fruits  of,  140. 

The  Mori-ill,  282. 

Question  of,  in  politics,  629. 

Of  1846, 126 ;  1861, 137  ;  1872, 139  ; 

1883, 140. 
Taylor,  George,  Rev.,  whipped 

by  Ku-Klux,  471. 
Taylor,  Miles,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress  from  Louis 
iana,  74. 

Distrustful  of  secession  as  a 
remedy,  74. 

Member  of  committee  of  thir 
ty-three,  77. 

Member  Confederate  Con 
gress,  94. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  elected  Presi 
dent,  1848,  48. 
Telegraphs,  extensive  use  of,  in 

the  civil  war,  215. 
Territories,  question  of  exclu 
sion  of  slavery  from,  1784, 
42. 

Missouri  compromise,  45. 

Slavery  question  in  Charles 
ton  convention,  58,  59. 

Magnitude  of  the  conflict  re 
specting  slavery  in,  1859,  63. 

Suffrage  bill  for,  376. 
Terry,  Alfred  H.,  his  operations 

against  Fort  Fisher,  212. 
Test  oaths,  delay  in  repealing,  29. 

No  utility  in,  250. 

Of  the  Missouri  constitution, 
as  revised  by  the  conven 
tion  of  January,  1865,  251. 

Joint  resolution  of  Congress, 
March,  1869,  respecting  re 
quirement  of,  528. 

The  system  of,  602,  616. 

Feature  of  reconstruction 
plans,  602. 

A  device  for  repression  of 
republican  form  of  gov 
ernment,  602. 

The  iron-clad  oath,  602,  615. 

Oath  required  as  a  qualifica 
tion  of  jurors,  603. 


Test  oaths,  author's  efforts  for 

repeal,  603. 

To  eradicate  whole  system,  604. 

General  question  discussed  by 
the  author,  Feb.  1, 1871,  604. 

Act  of  Feb.  15, 1871,  modify 
ing  iron-clad  oath,  604. 

A  mockery,  605. 

Tendency  to  produce  demor 
alization,  605. 

In  England,  605-609. 

The  Missouri  prescriptive 
oath,  613-615. 

Two-thirds  vote  in  the  House 
for  author's  bill  for  repeal 
of,  616. 

Repeal  of,  May  13, 1884,  616. 

Repeal   of,   an  issue  in   the 

campaign  of  1876,  628. 
Texas,  question  of  annexation 
of,  45-48. 

Growth  of,  45-46. 

Ultimate  results  of  annexa 
tion  of,  48. 

Convention  and  ordinance  of 
secession,  116, 117. 

Opposition  to  the  secession 
movement  in,  116. 

Steps  toward  reorganization, 
1865,  399. 

Provisional  government,  399. 

Convention  of  1866,  401. 

Part  of  the  fifth  military  dis 
trict  under  the  reconstruc 
tion  acts,  572. 

Disordered  condition  of  af 
fairs  in,  at  beginning  of  1867, 
572. 

Financial  condition  of,  1866- 
1867,  572. 

General  Griffin  in  command 
of  sub-district  of,  572. 

Registration  in,  574. 

Convention  in,  under  recon 
struction  acts,  574. 

Constitution  for,  adopted  by 
convention,  Dec.,  1868, 575. 

Constitution  ratified,  1869.  576. 

Provisions  of  constitution  of, 
1868-1869,  575,  576. 

Provisions  of  constitution  of, 
1876,  575. 

Readmitted  to  representation, 
577. 

Conditions  of  readmission  of, 
577. 

Debt  of,  577. 

Tennessee,  military  league  with 
the  Confederate  States,  120. 

Ordinance  of  secession,  121. 

Union  sentiment  of  eastern, 
153. 

Military  operations  in,1862,175. 
In  1863,  202. 
In  1864,  209. 

Loyal  government  in,  set  up 
during  the  war,  341. 

Recognition  of  same  pro 
posed,  342. 

Secedes  from  the  Confeder 
acy,  381. 

Continued  loyalty  in  eastern, 
381. 

Andrew  Johnson  appointed 
military  governor  of,  381. 

State  convention,  Jan.  9, 1865, 
882. 

State  convention  nominates 
William  G.  Brownlow  gov 
ernor,  382. 

Adopts  amendments  to  state 
constitution,  382. 

Amendments  ratified,  382. 

Restored  to  her  federal  rela 
tions,  382. 


Tennessee,  Ku-Klux  in,  453,  454, 

Thayer,  Eli,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  75. 

Characterized,  75,  91. 
Thayer,  M.  Russell,  takes  part 
in  debate  upon  the  power  of 
amending  the  Constitution, 
January,  1865,  323. 
Thirteenth  amendment,  sketch 
of  course  of,  in  Congress, 
320-327. 

Explanation  of  the  author's 
vote  upon  the  final  passage 
of,  327. 

Attitude  of  author  toward, 
328,  329. 

President  Lincoln's  view  re 
specting  ratification  of,  344. 
Thomas,  Benjamin  F.,  views 
respecting  relation  of  na 
tional  and  state  powers, 
82. 

Words  about  magna  charta, 

235. 

Thomas,  Francis,  member  of 
committee  of  investigation 
preliminary  to  impeach 
ment  of  President  Johnson, 
581. 

Thomas,  George  H.,  at  Webb's 
Cross  Roads,  174. 

In  command  army  of  the 
Cumberland,  202. 

Services  in  Tennessee,  1864, 
209. 

Assigned  to  the  command  of 
the  third  district,  295. 

Effect  of  his  successes,  310. 

Directs  suspension  of  Bishop 
Wilmer  from  his  functions, 
408. 

Thomas,  James  H.,  member  of 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  95. 

Sketch  of,  95. 

Thomas,  Lorenzo,  appointed 
secretary  of  war  ad  interim, 
582. 

Thompson,   Jeff.,  Confederate 
service  at  Belmont,  Mo.,  163. 
Thompson,  Richard  W.,  mem 
ber  of  the  Hayes  cabinet, 
669. 

Throckmorton,  J.  W.,  senti 
ments  respecting  the  Union, 
98. 

Elected  governor  of  Texas, 
1861,  401. 

Removed    as    governor    of 

Texas,  1867,  573. 

Thurman,  A.  G.,  his  bill  for  re 
lief  from  test  oaths,  603. 

Member  of  the  committee  on 
the  electoral  count,  637. 

Remarks  in  said  committee, 
644,  647. 

Member  electoral  commis 
sion,  650. 

Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  635. 
Tilghman,  Lloyd,  Confedei-ate 
service  at  Fort  Henry,  175. 
Toombs,  Robert,  personal 
sketch  of,  as  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  70. 

Member  of  the  committee  of 
thirteen,  77. 

Attitude  toward  the  Critten- 
den  proposition,  77-80. 

Urging  secession  of  Georgia, 
80. 

Character  and  services  to  the 
Confederacy,  87. 

Speech  in  the  Georgia  legisla 
ture,  setting  forth  griev 
ances,  111. 


724 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Toombs,  Robert,  vote   in  com 
mittee  of  thirteen  on  Jeffer 
son  Davis'  proposition,  115. 
Totten,  A.  O.  W.,  member  of 
military  league  commission 
of  Tennessee,  1861, 120. 
Tourgee,   A.    W.,   member  of 
North  Carolina  convention 
of  1867, 498. 
Trade  dollar,  authorized,  671. 

Abolished,  671. 
Trade,    effect    of    restrictions 

upon,  69. 
Train,    Charles     R.,     member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  91. 
Attorney-general   of    Massa 
chusetts,  91. 

Treaty  with  Great  Britain  of 

1783,  a  confederacy   not   a 

union  of  states  recognized 

in,  262. 

Treat,  our  flag  not  lowered  in 

the  affair  of  the,  289. 
Affair,  author's   opinion  on, 

284. 

British  sentiment  on  the  af 
fair  of  the,  283. 
American  feeling  on  the  af 
fair  of  the,  283. 

The  search  of  the,  inoppor 
tune,  281, 282. 

Ii-ritating  remarks  of  the  offi 
cers  of  the,  280. 
Legal    liabilities  of  the,   276, 

277. 

Removal  of  the  Confederate 
commissioners  from  the, 
280. 

Search  of  the,  279. 
The  arrest  of  the,  278. 
The,  takes  on  board   Mason 

and  Slidell,  276. 
Affair  of  the,  275-293. 
Mr.  Sumner's  speech  on  the 

affair  of  the,  293. 
Secretary  Seward's  policy  and 
course  in  the  affair  of  the, 
281-293. 
Author's  speech  on  the  affair 

of  the,  285,  286. 
Legal  aspect  of  the  affair  of 

the,  288. 

Trimble,  William  H.,  at  Har 
per's  Ferry,  189. 
Trollope,    Anthony,   guest    at 
dinner  of  Secretary  Seward 
after  Trent  affair,  291. 
Troup,  George  Mclntosh,  303. 
Trumbull,  Jonathan,  statue  of, 

26. 

Trumbull  bill,  invoked  in  the 
Milligan  and  Vallandigham 
cases,  229,  233. 
Trumbull,      Lyman,     senator 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Reports  measures,  Feb. 18, 1865, 
for   recognition   of   Louis 
iana,  342. 

Attitude  toward  President 
Johnson's  administration, 
a56. 

Counsel  for  Mr.  Tilden  in  the 
Louisiana  case  before  the 
electoral  commission,  655. 
Turreted  ironclads,  172. 
Twitchell,  Homer  G.,  murder 

of,  566. 
Two-thirds  rule  in  Democratic 

conventions,  46,  59. 
Tybee   Island,  Union  occupa 
tion  of,  166. 

Tyler,  Daniel,  at  Bull  Run,  155. 

Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  effect    of, 

48,49. 


Underwood,  John  C.,  presides 
at  Virginia    constitutional 
convention,  1867,  489. 
Underwood,  J.  W.  H.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  96. 

Attitude  toward  secession,  96. 

Union  Reform  party  of  South 

Carolina,  505. 

Usurpation  of  1877,  causes  of  ,124. 
Van  Brunt,  Gershom  J.,  com 
manding  Minnesota  in  expe 
dition  against  Hatteras,1861, 
164. 
Van    Buren,    Martin,   opposes 

annexation  of  Texas,  46. 
Presidential  campaign  of  1844, 

47. 
Presidential     candidate     on 

Free  Soil  ticket,  1848,  48. 
Proposed  member  of  peace 

commission,  1861,  315. 
Vallandigham,  C.  L.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  76. 
Biographical  sketch  of,  80-85. 
Arrest  of,  197. 
Address  from  prison,  229. 
Predicts  surrender  of  Mason 

and  Slidell,  284. 

Vance,  Robert  B.,  Jun.,  mem 
ber  of  Congress,  307. 
Vance,  Robert  B.,  Sen.,  member 

of  Congress,  307. 
Vance,  Z.  B.,  member  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress  from  North 
Carolina,  distrustful  of  se 
cession  as  a  remedy,  74. 
Attitude  respecting  the  Crit- 

tenden  compromise,  78. 
His    voice    never    heard    at 
Washington    for  disunion, 
93. 
Governor  of  North  Carolina, 

1864,  295. 
His  ability,  296. 
His  letter  of  Sept.  23, 1864,  re 
specting  conscription,  305. 
Proposes  meeting  of  govern 
ors,  1864,  306. 
Biographical  sketch  of,  306- 

308. 
Letter  to  Jefferson  Da  vis,  Dec. 

30, 1863,  319. 

Elected   governor  of    North 
Carolina,  1861,  as  anti-seces 
sionist,  384. 
Efficiency  of  ,as  war  governor, 

384. 

Appeal  by,  in  favor  of  law 

and  order,  April  28, 1865,  384. 

Vandever,    William,     member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  99. 
Military  service,  99. 
Van  Dorn,  Earl,  at  Pea  Ridge, 

174. 

At  Holly  Springs,  194. 
Vagrant  act  of  Mississippi,  1865, 

393. 

Veazie  bank,  the,  vs.  the  collec 
tor,    centralizing  tendency 
of  decision  in,  143, 144. 
Vermont,  personal  liberty  bills, 

107. 
Count  of   electoral  vote   of, 

1877,  664. 
Vernon,  T.  O.  P.,  impeachment 

of,  505. 

Vicksburg,  capture  of,  195. 
Viele,  Egbert  S.,  service  against 

Port  Royal,  1861,  165. 
Virginia,  convention  and  ordi 
nance  of  secession,  119. 
Military  league  with  the  Con 
federate  states,  119. 
Partition  of,  122. 


Virginia,  campaign  in,  1862, 179- 
188  ;  1863, 196, 200. 

Military  operations  in,  196,  200. 
1864,  203-206. 

Peace  resolutions  prepared  in 
senate  of,  1864,  319. 

Loyal  government  of,  341. 

Recognition  of,  proposed,  342. 

Reconstructed  government 
of,  recognized  by  Johnson, 
349. 

Steps  toward  state  organiza 
tion  in  eastern,  421. 

Alexandria  constitution,  423. 

Attempt  at  unification,  424. 

Constitutes  first  military  dis 
trict,  480. 

Military  commander  retains 
provisional  officers  in,  484. 

Military  commissioners  ap 
pointed  for,  485. 

Sub-districts  established  in, 
486. 

Convention  for  constitution 
for,  authorized,  487. 

Registration  of  votes  in,  487, 
488. 

Constitutional  convention  of, 
489. 

Constitution  of,  ratified,  492. 

State  officers  for,  elected,  492. 

Readmission  of,  to  represent 
ation,  493. 

Financial  condition  of,  493. 

Resolutions  of  1798  give  no 
sanction  to  secession,  103. 

Resolutions  of  1798,  Mr.  Mad 
ison's  paper  respecting,  104. 
Virginia,  the  ram,  168-172. 

Destruction  of,  182. 

Voorhees,  D.  W.,  speech  in  the 

House  of   Representatives, 

Feb.   18,    1863,    denouncing 

policy  of  arbitrary  arrest, 

Speech  on  the  state  of  the 
Union,  March,  1864,  239. 

Speech  and   position  of,   re 
specting  thirteenth  amend 
ment,  Jan.  9, 1855,  321. 
Wade,    Benjamin   F.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  72. 

Characterized,  88. 

Vote  in  committee  of  thir 
teen  on  Jefferson  Davis' 
proposition,  115. 

At  Bull  Run,  157, 158. 

Seeks  removal  of  McClellan, 
1861, 159. 

Reports  House  reconstruction 
bill  with  amendment  strik 
ing  out  the  word  white, 
339. 

Protests  against  President 
Lincoln's  conduct  in  de 
clining  to  sign  the  recon 
struction  bill,  341. 

Purpose  of  the  Republican 
majority  of  the  House  rela 
tive  to,  1868,  582. 

Right  of,  to  sit  on  the  im 
peachment  trial  of  Presi 
dent  Johnson  challenged, 
586. 

Waite,  M.  R.,  proposed  as 
member  of  electoral  com 
mission,  638. 

Wales,  Josiah  T.,  elected  rep 
resentative     in'     Congress 
from  Florida,  1870,  522. 
Walker,  David  S.,  elected  gov 
ernor  of  Florida,  1865,  420. 
Walker,  Gilbert  C.,  elected  gov 
ernor  of  Virginia,  492. 


INDEX. 


725 


Walker,  L.  P.,  Confederate  sec 

retary  of  war,  150. 
Hesitates  to  order  an  attack 

on  Fort  Sumter,  150. 
Walker,  Robert  J.,  position  re 
specting    the      Lecompton 
bill,  58. 

Wallace,  Lew,  at  Shiloh,  177. 
In    command  at  Cincinnati, 

190. 
Wallace-Simpson    contested 

election  case,  465. 
War,  what  are  acts  of.  145. 
Whether  necessary,  217,  218. 
Existence  of,  not  recognized 
in   theory   by  the   United 
States,  242. 

War,  the  civil,  cost  of,  214-217. 
Avoidable  by  the  adoption  of 
theCrittenden  compromise, 
219. 

Causes  of  continuance,  226. 
Conditions  immediately   pre 
ceding  the  breaking  out  of, 

Act  of    Confederate    provi 

sional  congress,  May  6,  1861, 

respecting   conduct  of.  242. 
The   theory   upon    which  it 

was  prosecuted,  245. 
Persistent     prosecution    of, 

urged     in    Congress,   1865, 

314. 
Jefferson  Davis'  views  of  the 

purpose  of,  January,  1864, 

320. 
Issues   growing  out   of,   the 

theme   for   debate    during 

the  second  decade,  354. 
Purpose  of,  362,  363. 
Warden,  William  W.,  statement 

of  facts  by,  relating  to  im 

peachment  trial   of   Presi 

dent  Johnson,  592,  593. 
Warmoth,  Henry  C.,  sketch  of, 

429,  560. 

Delegate  to  Congress,  429. 
Elected  governor  of   Louis 

iana,  432,  550. 
Statement  by,  concerning  leg 

islative  corruption  in  Louis 

iana,  553. 
Power  conferred  on,  as  gov 

ernor  in  Louisiana,  558. 
Exposure  by,  of   legislative 


profligacy,  558,  559. 
rner,  Hiram,  303. 


Warner 

Washburn,  Cadwalader  C.,  con 

gressman,    major-general, 

and  governor,  99. 
Washburne,  Elihu  B.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  76. 
Member  committee  of  thirty- 

three,  77. 
Washburn,  Israel,  Jr.,  member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  90. 
Governor  of  Maine,  90. 
Washington,    defenses  of,  153- 

154. 
Washington,  George,  his  esti 

mate  of  slavery,  41. 
Watterson,  H.,  discusses  in  the 

House   of    Representatives 

the  action  of  the  electoral 

commission   in   the   Louis 

iana  case,  657. 
Watts,  Thomas  H.,  governor  of 

Alabama,  295. 
Weaver,  James  B.,  presidential 

nominee  of  the  Greenback 

party,  1880,  674. 
Weber,  Max,  service  in  expedi 

tion  against  Hatteras,  1861, 

164. 


Webb,  Alexander  S.,  in  com 
mand  of  the  first  reconstruc 
tion  district,  296,  492. 
Webb's  Cross  Roads,  battle  at, 

174. 

Webster,  Edward  H.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress  from 
Maryland,  92. 
Gave  his  efforts  to  the  Union 

party,  92. 

Weed,  Thurlow,  his  statement 
of  the  Seward-Campbell  cor 
respondence,  148. 
Weitzel,  Godfrey,  in  command 
in  Richmond,  April,  1865, 
422. 

Wells,  H.  H.,  governor  of  Vir 
ginia,  his  removal  and  rein 
statement,  296. 
Reason  for  removal,  492. 
Wells,  J.  Madison,  governor  of 

Louisiana,  349,  429. 
Removal  of,  from  governor 
ship  by  Gen.  Sheridan,  545. 
Expression  of  opinion  by  Gen. 

Sheridan  respecting,  545. 
West  Virginia,  recognition  of, 
an  extra-constitutional  mea 
sure,  341. 

Formation  of  state  of,  122. 
Abnormal    character   of    its 

creation,  421. 

Wheeler,  William  A.,  member 
of  committee  of  Congress 
sent  to  New  Orleans  to  ef 
fect  a  compromise,  569. 
Declared  elected  Vice-Presi- 

dent,  666. 

Whig  party  disbanded,  50. 
Whipple,  W.  D.,  report  by,  of 
disorder  in  Mississippi,  Ala 
bama,  and  Georgia,  Novem 
ber,  1866,  471. 

Whiteley,  William  G.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  77, 92. 
Member  committee  of  thirty- 
three,  77. 

Whitefield,  George,  Rev.,  rela 
tion  of,  to  early  slavery  in 
Georgia,  37. 

Whiting,  William,  view  of  con 
nection  of  slavery  with  the 
civil  war,  36. 

Whitney,  Ely,  influence  of  his 
invention  of  cotton-gin,  37. 
Whittlesey,  Elisha,  66. 
Wickliffe,  G.  M.,  impeachment 

of,  554. 

Wigfall,  Louis  T.,  senator  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  69. 
Personal  sketch,  69. 
Attitude  toward  the  Critten- 

den  compromise,  79. 
Military  and  civil  service  to 

the  Confederacy,  89. 
Wilcox,  O.  B.,  commander  sub- 
district  of  Lynchburg,  486. 
Wilderness,  battle  of  the,  197. 
Wilkes,  Charles,  action  in  case 
of  Mason  and  Slidell,  276-281. 
Character  of,  276. 
Commands   United  States 
steamship  San  Jacinto,  276. 
Views  of,  on  the  legal  position 

of  the  Trent,  276. 
Determines  to  seize  the  Trent, 

277. 
Considers  Slidell  and  Mason  as 

contraband,  277. 
Or,  as  conspirators,  278. 
Intercepts  the  Trent,  278. 
Takes  off  Mason  and  Slidell, 

279. 
Releases  the  Trent,  280. 


Wilkes,   Charles,   secretary   of 
the  navy  approves  the  action 
of,  in  the  Trent  affair,  281. 
Letter     acknowledging     the 

courtesy  of,  281. 
Mistake  of,  in  the  Trent  affair, 

281,  288,  289. 
British  cabinet  on  action  of, 

286. 
Independence  of  his  action  in 

Trent  affair,  287. 
Thanked  by  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  290. 

Willard,  A.  J.,  chosen  associate 
justice  supreme  court  of 
South  Carolina,  504. 
Willard,  George,  member  of 
committee  on  the  electoral 
count,  637. 

Williams,  Roger,  statue  of,  26. 
Williams,  Thomas,  member  of 
committee  of  investigation 
preliminary  to  impeach 
ment  of  President  Johnson, 
581. 

One  of  the  managers  in  the 
impeachment  of   President 
Johnson,  585. 
Sketch  of,  586. 
Williamsburg,  battle  of,  181. 
Williamson,  Hugh,  attitude  re 
specting  slavery,  41,  43. 
Willis,  M.  E.,  murder  of,  566. 
Wilmer,  Richard,  as  bishop  of 
Alabama,   instructs   clergy 
to  omit  the  prayer  for  the 
President,  408. 
Controversy    between,     and 

General  Woods,  408,  409. 
Wilmot  proviso,  55. 
Wilson,  Henry,  senator  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  72. 
Representative  of  Puritan 
and  progressive  element  of 
New  England,  86. 
Wilson,  James  F.,  reports  elec 
toral  bill  from  House  judi 
ciary   committee,   Jan.   30, 
1865,  342. 

Member  of  committee  of  in 
vestigation  preliminary  to 
impeachment  of  President 
Johnson,  581. 

One  of  the  managers  in  the 
impeachment  of  President 
Johnson,  585. 
Sketch  of,  586. 

Wilson,  James  H.,  devastation 
of  Alabama  by,  1865,  402, 
403. 

Wilson's  Creek,  battle  of,  163. 
Winchester,  investment  of,  by 

Lee,  1863, 200. 
Windom,  William,  in  Congress 

and  the  cabinet,  99. 
Winslow,  John  A.,  sinks  the  Al 
abama,  211. 
Winslow,     Warren,      member 

Thirty-sixth  Congress,  77. 
Member    of    committee     of 

thirty-three,  77. 
Sketch  of.  93. 
Winthrop,  Robert  C.,  66. 
Winthrop,    John,     statue     to, 

26 
His  protest  against  the  taking 

of  slaves  to  Georgia,  37. 
Wisconsin,     personal     liberty 

bill,  18o8, 107. 

Objection  to  count  of  electo 
ral  vote  of,  1877, 664. 
Vote  counted,  665. 
Walcott,    C.    P.,  attorney-gen 
eral  of  Ohio,  63. 


726 


THREE  DECADES  OF  FEDERAL  LEGISLATION. 


Wood,  Fernando,  letter  of,  to 
President  Lincoln  on  the 
subject  of  peace,  316. 
Motion  of,  for  commissioners 
and  recognition,  Dec.  14, 
1863,  316. 

Calls  for  an  investigation  of 
the  administration  of  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau,  447- 

Woodbridge,  Frederick  E., 
member  of  committee  of 
investigation  preliminary 
to  impeachment  of  Presi 
dent  Johnson,  581. 

Woods,  Charles  A.,  issues  or 
der  suspending  Bishop  Wil- 
merfrom  his  functions,  408. 

Woodson,  Samuel  H.,  member 
Thirty-sixth  Congress,  96. 

Wool,  John  E. ,  occupies  Nor 
folk,  181. 

Wooley,  Charles  W.,  interview 
of  author  with,  relating  to 
impeachment  trial  of  Presi 
dent  Johnson,  594. 


Worden,  John  L.,  commanding 

the  Monitor,  170, 171. 
Worth,  Jonathan,  elected  gov 
ernor   of    North    Carolina, 
385. 

Sketch  of,  385. 
Re-elected  governor,  388. 
Superseded   by  the   military 

commander,  388. 
Wright,    Horatio    G.,    service 
against    Port    Royal,    1861, 
165. 

Wright,  J.  J.,  chosen  chief  jus 
tice  supreme  court  of  South 
Carolina,  505. 

Wright,  John  V.,  member  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  74. 
Encourages  secession,  74. 
Sketch  of,  95. 

Wright,  Silas,  honorable  course 
in  presidential  nominating 
convention,  1844,  47. 
A  Cato,  683. 
Compared  to  Cleveland,  683. 


Wythe,  George,  attitude  toward 
slavery,  41,  43. 

Yancy,  William  L.,  slavery  ad 
vocated  in  the  Charleston 
convention  by,  59. 

Yeaman,  George  H.,  favors 
thirteenth  amendment,  Jan. 
9, 1865,  321. 

Votes  for  thirteenth  amend 
ment,  326. 

Yerger,  Edward  M.,  kills 
Lieutenant-Colonel  Joseph 
Crane,  531. 

Yorktown,  siege  of,  180. 

Yulee,  David  L.,  senator  Thir 
ty-sixth  Congress,  72. 
Sketch  of,  89. 

Zollicoffer,  Felix  K.,  killed  at 
Webb's  Cross  Roads,  174. 


V 


of 


tec 


toe 


YC  51323 


GENERAL  LIBRARY -U.C.  BERKELEY 


...^ 


,. 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF 


CAUFORNlX  LIBRARY 


